extend_current_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (creating hierarchical subtask structure) and mentions freedom to work on tasks in any order, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it affects existing task structures beyond the basic creation.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, explains the hierarchical structure concept, provides usage guidance, and gives an example. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be slightly more concise.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context. It explains the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from alternatives, and gives usage examples. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It focuses on the tool's purpose and usage rather than parameter details, which is appropriate given the complete 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Add a subtask', 'Creates hierarchical structure') and resources ('organize and decompose work', 'complex tasks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'create_new_task' for unrelated work, showing clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For unrelated work, use create_new_task.' It also mentions 'switch_focus' for working on tasks in any order, giving clear context for usage decisions among sibling tools.

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