Commit verified task

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions a possible side effect (unlocking dependents). It omits crucial details like whether the commit is destructive, permission requirements, failure modes, or how idempotency and versioning work, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and condition, and contains no filler. Every word contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It explains the trigger but not the meaning of parameters, expected behavior, error states, or operational prerequisites, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description makes no reference to any of the four parameters (taskId, actorId, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey). The agent must rely solely on schema constraints, which lack semantic meaning (e.g., why expectedVersion is needed), so the description adds no parameter understanding.

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 ('Commit a verified task') and specifies a precondition ('after every direct child is terminal'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_fail or task_cancel. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but is specific enough to convey its unique role.

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 phrase 'after every direct child is terminal' provides explicit when-to-use context, and 'This may unlock dependent tasks' indicates a beneficial outcome. However, it does not state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it lacks exclusions but is clear on timing.

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