Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destination state (todo), which is the most important behavior for a state-transition mutation, but says nothing about failure when the task isn't blocked, idempotency, or whether the blocker relation is cleared.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, zero waste, with the state transition front-loaded and the precondition trailing naturally. Nothing is padded or repeated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes and when to call it. Error semantics (task not blocked, unknown task_id) are the only meaningful omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single task_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including UUID format and pattern), so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies for a fully-covered single-parameter schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Move') plus the resource ('a blocked task') and the resulting state ('back to todo'), so the state transition is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from taskhold_block by direction of transition, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'once the blocker is resolved' supplies a clear precondition for invocation, which is the key usage context for an unblock operation. It does not state what happens if the task isn't actually blocked or name explicit alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.