fail_task

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action but does not reveal side effects, such as whether the task is closed or if it can be retried later, which is critical for a mutation tool.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and places the verb-resource upfront. However, it is slightly too brief and could benefit from additional structure without losing conciseness.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, given the many sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal value by implying the error is a message, but essentially repeats schema info, resulting in a baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' and identifies the resource 'task' along with the action 'failed with an error message', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'retry_task' or 'reset_task'.

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 'retry_task', 'reset_task', or 'mark_in_progress'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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