mark_task_status

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the override path, required permission flags (mapping statuses to flags), and concrete side effects (board + Slack notifications). Missing only reversibility or error behavior, but this is a rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and status values, then layers on override/permission/side-effect details. Every clause adds information; no filler. Dense but appropriate for the complexity.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, and side effects well. It falls short only on documenting the as_agent parameter and any return/error behavior, but an agent can call it correctly for typical 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable enum values for Status and implies Reason, but omits any explanation of TaskId or as_agent. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key parameters 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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('task') with an explicit scope: non-normal statuses. Enumerates the allowed status values, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does and can distinguish it from normal claim/work-flow siblings.

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?

Provides clear context: use for non-normal statuses, bypassing the claim mechanism (override path). Does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, but the implied contrast with the normal claim flow is strong.

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