Run task now

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the refusal conditions (suspended task, name/OID mismatch), the write-gate/dry-run behavior, and the side effect on recurring schedules. It stops short of describing idempotency or whether the run can be undone, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool-specific sentences are dense and front-loaded with no waste, but roughly a third of the text is a generic untrusted-quote warning plus a display-name formatting rule that applies to the whole server, not this tool. That boilerplate dilutes the signal an agent needs at selection time.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds that the result reports executionState read back after the call. Combined with refusal conditions, gating, and naming rules, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it identifies taskName as the unique name attribute 'as list_tasks and get_task give it', explains the cross-check against taskOid, and gives the reason (the confirming person reads the right name). That meaning is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Run a midPoint server task now') and immediately pins down the scope: runnable or closed tasks, with recurring tasks continuing on schedule. It distinguishes itself from the sibling resume_task by naming it as the correct tool for suspended tasks.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use (runnable or closed task, start immediately) and when not to (suspended task is refused, use resume_task instead). It also states the preconditions — the write gate and the dry-run fallback — so the agent knows the outcome before calling.

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