accelo_progress_task_to_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a mutation with side effects on related records, what the resulting status value actually is, whether the task must be assigned, or what errors occur if the transition is invalid. The bare parenthetical restating 'mark it started' adds nothing beyond the name.

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?

Very short, but the 'Args: id: Task ID' block is a restatement of the schema rather than added value, and the parenthetical is redundant. Front-loading is fine. Nothing is bloated, but nothing earns much either.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no discussion of state transitions, side effects, or failure modes. An agent cannot determine what this does to a task's lifecycle from the description alone. This is under-specified even for a simple one-parameter tool.

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. It does minimally document the single parameter as 'Task ID via Args: id', which at least confirms the parameter's identity and intent, though it does not specify format. With only one parameter and its role named, this is adequate.

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?

States a specific verb (progress) and resource (task to 'start'), and disambiguates from the sibling accelo_progress_task_to_done. The core action is clear, though the odd phrasing 'auto-progress' slightly obscures whether this is a status transition or a batch operation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing to alternatives. The sibling accelo_progress_task_to_done exists and the description never acknowledges it, nor does it say what state the task must be in beforehand. An agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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