Systemonomic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('accept', 'promoting'), but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that likely changes system state, warranting a low score.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations in a structured format. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated for optimal flow.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally viable. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral and usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 lists and briefly explains the two parameters ('project_id' and 'suggestion_ids'), adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on format, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline adequate score.

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 clearly states the action ('accept task suggestions') and outcome ('promoting them to actual project tasks'), which is specific and meaningful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'derive_task_suggestions', which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_task' or 'derive_task_suggestions'. It mentions the parameters but doesn't explain prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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