reset_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 disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the tool changes task state to pending, applies to ANY task (not just BLOCKED ones), and exists to support run retries. This is honest and useful, though it omits details like reversibility or side effects on the run.

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?

It is a single, efficiently front-loaded sentence. Every phrase earns its place: the state transition, the scope, and the purpose. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description captures the core action and intent. It is incomplete only in that it does not explain how to source project_id or when it would be inappropriate to reset a task. The gaps are not severe, but they keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needed to compensate. It does not mention task_id or project_id at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from the property names and titles. This is minimal but not zero, since task_id is self-explanatory given the tool name.

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 ('Reset') with a clear resource ('task') and a precise state transition ('BLOCKED (or any) task back to pending'). It also states the intent ('so run can retry it'), making the tool's role clear and distinguishable from siblings like health, status, or run.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool to move a task to pending so the run can retry it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling appears to compete directly with this action, so the context is sufficient.

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