fold_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that task_id accepts multiple reference formats, preserves existing chain, and returns both tasks. But it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects, which is a gap.

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 relatively concise with four short sentences, front-loading the purpose. The explanation of task_id formats is useful but could be condensed without losing meaning.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to document most parameters, lacks error conditions, and only briefly mentions return value. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return format, but parameter documentation remains insufficient.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only details task_id's reference formats, ignoring the other 6 parameters (title, description, labels, etc.), which are left without meaning beyond their names.

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 clearly states the tool inserts a new task after a given task_id, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_task (standalone creation) and move_task (reordering by explaining it inserts a next-step task).

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 implies usage for inserting a task after another in a sequence, and mentions it preserves downstream chain, which differentiates it from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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