bitrix_start_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the write operation and the confirm=true requirement, but it omits details about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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 a single focused sentence followed by a short requirement clause. It front-loads the verb and target status, contains no filler, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the action, target status, API method, and confirmation requirement. Minor caveats such as restrictions on already-completed tasks are absent but not essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only the confirm=true requirement, which is already stated in the schema, so no significant semantic value is added beyond the structured definition.

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?

Description states a concrete action ('Перевести задачу в статус «Выполняется»'), names the underlying API method tasks.task.start, and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like bitrix_complete_task or bitrix_update_task by specifying the target status.

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 intended use case is clear: move a task into the 'In progress' status. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the target status and API method provide enough context to select this tool over related task tools.

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