bump_task_priority

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'Bump task priority', implying mutation but giving no details on side effects, permission requirements, or what constitutes a 'bump'. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely short but under-specified, not concise. It fails to convey necessary context in its few words, constituting an under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, effects on the task, or any contextual guidance needed for correct use.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'amount' parameter, a number, is not explained (e.g., positive for increase, negative for decrease, or bounds). The required 'id' parameter lacks any clarification.

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 'Bump task priority' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'bump' means (increase? decrease?) and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'prioritize_task' or 'defer_task_priority'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'prioritize_task' or 'deprioritize_task'. The description offers no context for invocation.

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