task_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the resulting status value. It says nothing about idempotency (calling on an already-doing task), side effects such as markdown sync (task_sync_md exists as a sibling), failure behavior for unknown ids, or permissions.

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 short sentence with the action and target state front-loaded, no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what a call returns and what happens on error, and it does neither. For a mutation tool in a family of task lifecycle tools, the agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the single 'id' parameter beyond what the tool name implies. It never states that id is a task identifier or what form it takes (UUID, slug, numeric), leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (set) and the exact resulting state ("doing") on a task resource, which distinguishes it from siblings like task_done or task_block by implication. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus task_done, task_block, task_create, or init_task, and no mention of preconditions such as the task already existing or already being in progress. The agent must infer the usage entirely from the tool name.

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