Set task reasoning effort

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a change (implying mutation), specifies preconditions ('ready and unleased'), a ceiling ('within its recorded maximum'), and an authorization requirement for child tasks. This adds value beyond the schema, though it omits details like idempotency handling or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning (e.g., 'ready and unleased', 'recorded maximum', 'direct-parent authority'). This is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. It covers only the main purpose and two constraints, but fails to explain critical aspects such as the meaning of 'unleased', the exact authority chain, the versioning requirements, and the expected behavior on failure. An agent with this sparse description would struggle to use the tool correctly without further inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not even mention the 'reasoningEffort' parameter or clarify the meanings of 'taskId', 'expectedVersion', or 'idempotencyKey'. The schema itself lacks descriptions, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and the enum values.

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 states a specific verb 'Change' and resource 'model reasoning effort', and adds scoping conditions ('while a task is ready and unleased, within its recorded maximum'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling task tools like task_allocate or task_commit, which handle different aspects of task lifecycle.

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 gives a clear usage condition: the task must be ready and unleased, and child changes require direct-parent authority. It implies when to use this tool (when adjusting reasoning effort under these constraints) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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