task_fail

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the effect (marking failed) and recommends logging a reason. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description complements rather than contradicts.

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 concise (under 100 words) and well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, then args. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and parameter details. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: task_id as the claimed task's ID, and body as an optional reason, strongly recommended. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb-resource pair 'Mark your claimed task as failed.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning task_unclaim as an alternative for non-failure situations.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when you cannot complete it') and when-not-to-use ('If you're stepping away but the task isn't truly failed, use task_unclaim() instead'), including the benefit of unblocking other agents.

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