prioritize_task

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action but omits details like whether 'high' implies a specific numeric value, if it overrides existing priority, or if it triggers side effects (e.g., status changes).

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 concise (3 words), but it sacrifices clarity. While brevity is positive, it omits critical information that could fit in one or two more sentences.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools) and complete lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent has no way to determine parameter constraints, return values, or how this tool differs from similar ones.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (id, priority) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters. For instance, 'priority' is a number but its range or semantics (e.g., higher number = higher priority) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Set high priority' identifies a verb and resource (task priority), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bump_task_priority or deprioritize_task. The purpose is clear but overly generic, lacking specificity about which task or how priority is set.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as bump_task_priority or defer_task_priority, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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