task_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-obvious fact that despite the name nothing executes, that only the task row is created, and that dispatch is the caller's responsibility. It also notes that priority/horizon affect wall ordering. It omits permission requirements and any state/rollback behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the most important fact (the name is misleading, nothing executes). The clause 'This tool only creates the task row' mildly restates the preceding sentence, a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all nine parameters are schema-documented. The description covers the critical gotchas (no execution, manual dispatch, ordering semantics) for a 9-param tool. The one gap is modal: it never clarifies how this relates to task_create, which an agent must know to choose 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters and a 3 would be the baseline. The description adds real meaning on top by explaining that priority and horizon drive the task wall's ordering ('so set them here'), which is behavioral semantics the schema does not convey. The remaining parameters get no added narrative.

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?

It gives a concrete verb+resource — putting a task on a team's wall — and, crucially, corrects its own misleading name by stating that nothing executes. That is a strong, specific statement of purpose. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling task_create, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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 supplies an actual usage workflow: create the row here, dispatch it yourself via Agent(...)/SendMessage, and the sub-agent reports back through task_memo_add. That tells the agent what to do immediately after calling and which sibling closes the loop. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming the alternative task-creation tool.

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