task_fail

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

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so: 'Answers the task's id, state and attempt count as JSON.' It also discloses non-obvious state machine behavior (returns the task to open; third failure blocks until a human answers), which annotations cannot convey beyond readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then state consequences, then return format, then routing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Covers action, state transition, retry/blocking threshold, return payload, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly (including the non-idempotent attempt increment) 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% and both parameters (id, note) are fully documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('Record a failed attempt at a task') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling task_block and, implicitly, task_done. An agent can tell exactly what operation this is without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition selecting it: 'When you already know you need the human, use task_block instead.' The 'if it just didn't work, fail it' path is implied by the whole framing, giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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