Enqueue a task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses queue auto-creation, auto re-queue up to N on nack/lease-expiry, dedupe via dedupeKey, DAG gating via dependsOn, scheduling via delayMs, and the return of id + seq. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond merely 'enqueue a task.'

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 a single dense sentence but each clause earns its place, covering core behavior, payload, all optional params, and return value. It could be split into multiple sentences for readability, but it's not bloated.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, all optional parameter meanings, the goals-system semantics (goalId, dependsOn DAG gate), and explicitly states the return value (id + seq). It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Even though schema coverage is 91%, the description adds value by explaining the semantics of each optional parameter in context: 'priority (higher runs sooner)', 'maxAttempts (auto re-queue up to N on nack/lease-expiry)', 'dedupeKey (collapse duplicate enqueues)', and 'dependsOn (task ids that must all reach done... a DAG gate)'. These enrich the schema's terse descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Append a task to a work queue (created on first use).' This clearly distinguishes enqueue_task from sibling tools like claim_task, ack_task, and nack_task by focusing on the write-side operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (appending a task to a queue) and explains the purpose of optional parameters (triage, scheduling, dedupe, DAG dependencies). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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