Manage Task

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (mutating operations) and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds the specific actions (create, update, delete, move), which aligns with the destructive hint. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or irreversibility, but the annotations carry that burden. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundant words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key information (actions and resource). Every part serves a purpose.

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?

Despite having a complex multi-action tool with 11 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain parameter usage per action, required combinations, or any nuances. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to provide context. For a tool with this complexity, more guidance is needed for effective 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the calibration, when schema coverage is high, baseline score is 3, and the description does not compensate further.

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 explicitly states the tool manages tasks with specific actions: create, update, delete, or move. This clearly identifies the resource (tasks) and the operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks (read-only) and manage_task_list (manages task lists, not tasks themselves).

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. For example, there is no mention that for reading tasks one should use get_task or list_tasks, or that for managing task lists one should use manage_task_list. The description does not specify prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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