runrunit_assignment_play

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 clearly states a key side effect: pausing the current task if the assignee is already working on another. It also discloses the staging requirement, giving agents important context beyond a simple 'start tracking' phrase.

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 brief and efficient: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the side effect and the critical precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the side effect, and the required board state, giving an agent everything necessary to decide and prepare for invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so task_id and assignment_id are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination: 'Start tracking work on a task (play).' This unambiguously identifies the tool as a time-tracking/play action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, delete, or move operations.

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 a clear precondition: the task must be in the Ongoing column (board_stage_id: 96356) before calling. It implies when the tool should not be used, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool like runrunit_move_task_stage for cases where the task is not already Ongoing.

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