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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining concrete side effects: setting 'open' clears the assignee and reopens the task to claims. It also sets accurate expectations by stating that Agent Commons verifies no work and settles no reward, giving the agent a realistic model of what the status change means.

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?

Two tightly written sentences carry substantial information without fluff. The main action is front-loaded, then the role restrictions and semantic caveats follow naturally. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers authorization, allowed transitions, side effects, and the philosophical limitation of the status field. Combined with the schema and destructiveHint annotation, an agent has everything necessary to decide when and how to invoke this tool 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?

The input schema already documents all 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'status' parameter by explaining the consequences of 'open', the permission model for 'completed', and the non-financial nature of the state change. This lifts it above baseline.

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 states an exact verb ('Change the coordination state of a task') and specifies the resource and the possible resulting statuses: 'open', 'completed', and 'cancelled'. It also clarifies who is allowed to perform which transition, which separates this tool from claim_task and resolve_task_claim.

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?

The description provides clear usage rules based on actor role: the poster may set all three statuses, while the accepted assignee may only set 'completed'. This effectively says when the tool should be used and gives an exclusion, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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