Fail task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that this tool clears the lease and charges usage, and it explains the impact on future sibling allocations. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but the core side effects are transparent.

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, concise, and to the point. It contains no redundancy or irrelevant information, making it an efficient and well-structured summary.

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?

The description gives essential operation details but lacks broader context, such as prerequisites (e.g., must have an active lease), error scenarios, or how this fits into the overall task lifecycle. The mention of future sibling allocations provides some context, but it does not fully round out the operational picture.

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 description provides no explanation of any of the 6 parameters (taskId, workerId, leaseToken, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, reason) or the nested usage object. Although parameter names are self-explanatory, the schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by clarifying their roles or relationships.

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 tool's function: recording a definitive worker failure, clearing its lease, and charging final usage. It also distinguishes this from other task actions by mentioning 'definitive' and the actual-usage accounting, which sets it apart from cancellation or release.

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 when to use this tool (for definitive worker failures) and contrasts it with the alternative of counting full reservation vs actual failed usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a decision tree, so it falls short of a fully explicit usage guideline.

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