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

With only minimal annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure well: it marks the task, blocks claiming until resolved, and runs the Tango PM reviewer to generate a brief, questions, and possible subtasks. It also clarifies that a human applies the result, managing expectations. It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the main side effects are disclosed.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries useful routing or behavioral information. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and then explains effects and follow-up steps. Slightly dense, but not wasteful.

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 when to use the tool, what the tool does, what happens next, and where to retrieve the proposal. There is no output schema, but the follow-up guidance to use `get_task_review` compensates. A small gap is that the return value or success behavior of the call itself is not described, but this is not blocking for correct invocation.

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 documents both `task_id` and `reason`. The description adds little beyond calling the task 'under-specified', which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the parameter documentation work.

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 a specific verb and resource: flag a task as missing information by marking it `needs_more_info`. It also distinguishes this from guessing and places it in a clear workflow alongside `get_task_review`, so an agent can tell what the tool is for without inspecting siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use criteria: vague goal, no checkable definition of done, unclear scope, and tells the agent to use it INSTEAD of guessing. It does not enumerate alternatives like `ask_human` or `request_decomposition`, but the trigger conditions are specific enough to route the agent correctly.

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