Supersede failed task

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the parent-authority constraint, but fails to disclose consequences like version checks, idempotency implications, side effects on the failed task or replacement, reversibility, or expected result behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating audit/closure operation.

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 and front-loaded with the action. Every clause adds useful meaning—the main purpose is stated immediately and the authority condition follows without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutating operation—the description is far too terse. It leaves out preconditions (task state requirements, replacement viability), the meaning of versioning/idempotency fields, and what the tool returns or changes.

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 schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description does little to explain them. It loosely maps 'failed task' and 'replacement' to taskId and replacementTaskId, and the parent-authority note hints at parentLeaseToken/expectedParentVersion, but actorId, reason, expectedVersion, and idempotencyKey remain unexplained.

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 identifies the primary operation: linking a failed task to a viable sibling replacement for audit and closure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_fail or task_cancel by introducing the replacement concept, though 'sibling' is domain jargon and not fully elaborated.

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 the context (a failed task with a replacement available) and states one specific precondition: child supersession requires direct-parent authority. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as task_fail, task_cancel, or task_release, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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