task.start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation (marking a task as being worked on) but does not disclose permissions required, side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the task is already in progress. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted wording and is front-loaded. However, its brevity borders on under-specification for a state-changing tool, and it fails to structure any additional useful context.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description provides only minimal context. It is adequate to understand the basic action but does not clarify how the task is identified, what the effect looks like, or how it relates to sibling task-state tools. More detail would be expected for a mutation tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the empty input schema is consistent with the description.

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 clearly states a specific action: marking a task as being worked on. It effectively distinguishes the tool from related siblings like task.add or task.done by implying an in-progress state change. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from task.cancel or task.list beyond the state named.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task.add, task.done, or task.cancel. It also omits any prerequisites or context for starting a task. Only the implied meaning of 'being worked on' suggests usage.

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