defer_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses batching ('in one write') and propagation of shared reason/agent, but it does not mention version-guard behavior, the effect on the current iteration, or failure semantics.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose ('Move one or many tasks to the backlog in one write') and then give the key usage constraints. No filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the core behavior, batch addressing, and shared-field effects are covered. The undecorated required parameter (version) and optional guard (expect) are left to the schema, which prevents full completeness but is acceptable because the schema documents them.

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 89%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds cross-parameter guidance: 'For several, pass indexes or tasks' and 'Shared reason/agent apply to every item,' which clarifies how the array and single modes relate. It does not add meaning to the undecorated version parameter.

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 names a specific action ('Move') and resource ('the backlog') and scopes it to one or many tasks. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_to_backlog, but the move semantics make the intent reasonably distinguishable.

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 clear invocation context: for several tasks, pass indexes or tasks, and shared reason/agent apply to every item. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative statement, but the core use case is unambiguous.

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