add_statetree_task

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 only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether the asset is modified in memory or saved, whether permissions are required, or if there are limitations on task types). The existence of an output schema is noted but not described, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by a clean, bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence contributes value, with no extraneous content. The structure is easily scannable.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description covers the basic action and parameter meanings but lacks deeper context. It does not explain how a task fits into the StateTree architecture, what constitutes a valid state, or how properties and instance_properties should be structured. The output schema exists but is not mentioned, which reduces contextual completeness.

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 each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'task_class: Task struct name (e.g. MassEnemyAttackTask)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. While some explanations are minimal (e.g., 'state: State index path'), they provide enough context for typical use. The examples for task_class are helpful.

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 states 'Add a task to a state', which clearly identifies the action (add), the resource (task), and the target (state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_statetree_state or add_statetree_evaluator. However, it does not elaborate on what a task represents in the StateTree context, which could be improved for clarity.

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 add_statetree_evaluator or add_statetree_condition. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the state must exist), nor any exclusion criteria. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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