upservice_task_agreement_action

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

The description indicates the tool modifies state (advancing a workflow step) and returns the updated state, consistent with non-readOnly annotations. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, or idempotency beyond what annotations imply.

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 with two sentences, clearly stating purpose and parameter requirements. The use of 'Args:' and 'Returns:' structure is acceptable but slightly verbose, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior and return value for a tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema. It does not explain the difference between actions (schema covers that) or potential side effects, but is reasonably complete given the context.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (task_id, action, date_end, rejection_reason). The description echoes these constraints without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool advances an agreement/approval workflow step on a task, listing specific actions: progress, approve, reject. This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the three distinct outcomes distinguish it from other task-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upservice_update_task_status or upservice_get_agreement_steps. There are no prerequisites, context for use, or exclusion criteria.

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