advance_repo_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a state mutation and hints at optimistic concurrency ('exact version'), but never says the call fails on a version mismatch, whether transitions are reversible, what permissions are required, or which target states are terminal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the semantics noted elsewhere.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the call is safe to retry, what happens on version conflict, or how the terminal states behave.

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 yet only partially does: 'exact version' loosely maps to expectedVersion, and the stage words loosely map to some target values, but repoTaskId is unexplained and the enum members BLOCKED and CANCELLED are never mentioned.

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 ('Advance') and resource ('repo task') and names the lifecycle stages it moves through (planning, pull request, merge), which maps to the target enum. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling workflow_ticket_advance, so an agent must infer the repo-task vs ticket distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this versus workflow_ticket_advance, workflow_complete_task, or workflow_task_skip. The phrase 'with an exact version' hints at a precondition but never states when the call is appropriate or what to do if the version has moved on.

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