coordinate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: atomicity and revision freshness (optimistic concurrency), plus that reason is audit evidence. It omits what happens on a revision mismatch, error semantics, and permission rules beyond "owner," leaving significant gaps.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core concept, but the telegraphic, fragmentary phrasing ("Atomic task lifecycle with fresh revision") sacrifices parseability for brevity rather than earning each clause clearly.

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 7-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no schema descriptions is under-served by a two-sentence, jargon-heavy description. An agent lacks enough context to invoke the actions correctly or handle concurrency/error cases.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only glosses expected_revision ("fresh revision") and reason ("evidence"), while progress, idempotency_key, actor, and task_id remain entirely undocumented in both schema and text.

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?

The description conveys the domain (task lifecycle state transitions with optimistic concurrency via a fresh revision) and the resource is inferable from task_id/action, but it never states a clean verb+resource and reads as compressed jargon. It only weakly differentiates from siblings like update_task, which an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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?

"Claim checks assignment/dependencies" and "Owner can block/resume/report progress/release/complete" give precondition and role hints per action. However, there is no guidance on when to use this multi-action tool versus update_task or the other lifecycle siblings, so routing remains implied.

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