edit_inbox_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses optimistic-concurrency rejection via expectedUpdatedAt, a field-level restriction (risk level and risk confirmation cannot change), a state precondition (inbox only), and replacement semantics ('pass the complete title, objective, acceptance criteria, and dependencyIds'). Remaining gaps are the response/return behavior and what happens to the task after a successful edit, plus the unmentioned actorLabel.

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?

Four sentences in a deliberate order: purpose, required call protocol, constraints, and the alternative tool. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim and no sentence could be dropped without losing a distinct piece of guidance.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the hard parts — concurrency safety, state gating, immutable fields, and sibling routing. It stops short of describing the success outcome and permissions for editing another agent's task, which matters given the 'you or another agent' scope.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does — it ties expectedUpdatedAt to get_task's updatedAt and clarifies that title, objective, acceptanceCriteria, and dependencyIds must be supplied as complete values rather than partial patches. It leaves actorLabel and the taskId-to-get_task relationship undefined in prose.

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 — 'Correct the definition of an inbox task' — and bounds the scope by explicitly naming the alternative for run-scoped progress, update_task. An agent can distinguish this from update_task, create_task, and get_task without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (call get_task first and pass the latest updatedAt), a state gate (only works while the task is in inbox), and a named alternative (update_task for run-scoped progress). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated, not implied.

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