accept_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by describing the response ('the request and anything else the peer said') and the decline path, but it omits state-change consequences: whether the peer is notified, what status the task moves to, whether the action is reversible via cancel_task, or what happens with an already-accepted or expired task.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by return behavior and the alternative. Every sentence carries information; minor awkwardness in 'anything else the peer said' but nothing wasteful enough to penalize.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value needn't be explained in depth, and the key routing information is present. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and one undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum cover reversibility, notification side effects, and error conditions before it is complete.

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 50% — message is documented in the schema, task_id is not. The description partially compensates by implying task_id originates from list_available_tasks, but never explains the identifier's format, scope, or failure behavior for a stale/unknown id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does half the work.

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 and resource ('Take on new work') and immediately anchors the source of that work via list_available_tasks. It also names the contrasting action path (update_task with rejected), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like accept vs. delegate vs. reply without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (on work surfaced by list_available_tasks) and gives a concrete when-not with the exact alternative call (update_task with rejected). This is the rare case where the exclusion and its replacement are both spelled out.

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