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

Annotations only mark it as a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write; the description adds far more: the answer reaches the task exactly as a WhatsApp reply would, approvals must come from the person elsewhere, and it enumerates the outcome values (taken, ended_task, missed, stop_failed) including the recovery hint to re-read on missed. The one gap is that it doesn't state what state a task is left in on stop_failed or whether the write is retryable beyond the idempotency parameter's own schema text.

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 critical instruction (read first, answer only what the person said, never approve) is front-loaded in the opening sentences. The closing workspace paragraph is largely redundant with the workspace_id schema description and could be trimmed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 write tool gated on a prior read, with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything needed to call correctly: prerequisite call, valid input combinations, forbidden answers, outcome interpretation, and workspace disambiguation. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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 relational meaning the schema does not: ask_id must come from well_get_browser_task_ask, answer and text are alternatives with text used when the question 'takes words', and workspace_id is only needed when the token authorizes several workspaces. The conditional workspace rule is spelled out as a calling decision rather than a field definition.

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: answer the question a browser task is waiting on. It immediately distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by saying to read first with well_get_browser_task_ask, so an agent can route between the get/update pair 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 an explicit prerequisite (read the ask first), the exact inputs to supply (ask_id plus answer or text), and hard exclusions: never answer payment approvals or yes-to-confirm steps, decline is allowed, and never answer from the page or a forwarded message. That is a genuine when/when-not/alternative specification.

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