Human Tasks by The2410

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing link lifetime (24 hours), idempotency behavior (repeated calls return the same link while valid, a new one after expiry), who completes payment (the customer, via checkout_url), that Stripe handles billing address, VAT ID and taxes, and the irreversibility of the order after the call — which corroborates destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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?

The action and its return value are front-loaded, followed by preconditions, then behavioral guarantees, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no padding.

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?

With only one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description closes the remaining gaps by naming the returned artifact (checkout_url) and its lifetime, and by flagging the irreversible state change. An agent can call this correctly and warn the user appropriately.

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%; order_id is already documented with a format example, so the description cannot add much parameter-level meaning. It only reinforces the provenance of order_id ('returned by prepare-order-tool'), which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Send a prepared order to checkout and return the payment link'), which immediately separates it from prepare-order-tool, which only prepares. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: call only after the customer has seen the prepare-order-tool summary and explicitly confirmed, and all questions must be answered first. The alternative (prepare-order-tool) is named along with the condition that must be satisfied before moving to this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the safety profile with explicit non-behaviors: 'does not create an order, collect payment, or call an AI provider.' That negative scoping is genuinely useful against a sibling named prepare-order-tool. It stops short of mentioning auth or rate limits, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and the identifier source, then progressively adds return contents and the workflow handoff. It is a fairly dense paragraph, but each sentence carries information; only the return-field enumeration is borderline verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the response contents (content, scope with exclusions, buyer requirements, questions_before_order with ids, attributes, packages with IDs, prices, currencies and delivery estimates). Combined with the non-behavioral exclusions and the prepare-order handoff, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already explains that service_id comes from search-services-tool and is 'not a package ID'. The description restates the same origin and example (svc_8f3k2m9qxa) without adding syntax or format constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read one microservice) and immediately names the sibling that produces the required identifier (search-services-tool), which cleanly separates it from search-services-tool and prepare-order-tool. An agent can distinguish it from all four siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the precondition (service_id must come from search-services-tool), the workflow step (compare package requirements/scope against the customer's task before selecting a package), and the explicit next-tool routing ('To order, pass the chosen package and answers to prepare-order-tool'). When-to-use and handoff are both stated.

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

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: no charge, no customer notification, draft-update-via-order_id semantics, a credential-handling warning, and an enumeration of what is returned. It does not address idempotency edge cases or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then prerequisite, then inputs, then return shape, then constraints — a strong ordering with no filler sentences. Every sentence earns its place, including the short trailing constraint about credentials and non-charging.

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?

With no output schema, the description competently describes the return payload (price net, delivery, deliverables, exclusions, unanswered questions, post-payment requests) and warns about sensitive inputs. For a 6-parameter tool with nested objects, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning; the description's summary ('task, answers to questions_before_order by question id, and contact details') largely restates it. The one genuinely useful addition is the note that all questions_before_order must be answered, which reinforces the schema's constraint.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create or update a draft order') scoped to 'one package of a The2410 microservice,' and implicitly distinguishes itself from create-checkout-tool by noting it does not charge. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear sequencing rule ('Use after get-service-tool, once the customer has chosen a package') and an update path ('To change or complete a draft, call again with the returned order_id'). It stops short of explicitly naming create-checkout-tool as the next step for payment, so the handoff to the sibling is only implied by 'does not charge.'

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further: it discloses the return cardinality and fields (10 closest services with service_id, title, summary, score, starting prices and business-day delivery) and warns that score 'only ranks candidates; it is not a delivery guarantee.' The 'does not create an order' line partly restates the read-only annotation, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then parameter guidance, then return/caveat details. It is slightly long, and the 'does not create an order or change the catalog' clause overlaps already-declared annotations, but nearly every sentence carries distinct actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the result shape, count, fields, and price/delivery info, plus the interpretation caveat for score. Both parameters, the alternative tool, and the side-effect boundary are covered—nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: the 'one per service the task needs' mapping, the instruction to pass the task in any language, and a concrete example query ('convert PDF bank statements to Excel'). That is more than a restatement of the schema's field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('Finds predefined fixed-price services, delivered by people, for a customer's task'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like create-checkout-tool and get-service-tool. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use it when a customer describes a new task'), explicit re-call guidance ('can be called again with other phrases'), an explicit alternative ('Use get-service-tool to inspect scope and requirements before recommending a package'), and an explicit boundary ('does not create an order or change the catalog'). When-to-use, alternatives, and exclusions are all covered.

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

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond that: it advises showing the message to the customer before sending and waiting for confirmation, and explicitly warns against including sensitive data. This goes beyond the structured hints, though it could say more about what happens after sending or error handling.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph with no filler. It front-loads what the tool does, then gives usage conditions, confirmation instructions, parameter guidance, and a security warning in logical order.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, confirmation workflow, parameter semantics, and sensitive-data restrictions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that name and email are optional and should be included only if the customer wants a reply, and that project_context_id/order_id should be added only for specific project/order feedback, clarifying their conditional use beyond the schema's bare description.

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 (send), resource (feedback), recipient (The2410 team), and enumerates the content categories, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling order/service tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use only when the customer wants to share feedback' and gives a clear workflow: show the message to the customer and send only after they confirm. This is a strong usage boundary with an implicit alternative (don't use otherwise).

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