start_working

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—that the action notifies other team members who is working on the task—but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., idempotency, permissions, or what happens if already marked). For a simple state-change tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences that are direct and free of filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise while still conveying the core action and its social effect.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the purpose and the external consequence. It could be slightly improved by adding a note on when to call it (e.g., at the start of work), but overall it is complete for its simplicity.

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 already provides a complete description for task_id ('The ID of the task to start working on'), so the tool description adds no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, which gives the baseline of 3 without requiring extra elaboration.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark'), the object ('a task'), and the state ('actively working'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like stop_working. It also explains the effect (visibility to other team members), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage when one begins working on a task ('Mark that you are actively working'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as stop_working or update_task_status. No exclusions or situational guidance are provided, making it average in usage direction.

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