agent_task_tick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the no-self-certification rule, that status='verified' requires non-empty evidence, and the 400 failure mode. It stops short of stating reversibility, idempotency, or what a successful call returns, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the hard constraint, then the trigger guidance. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical phrase list is slightly verbose but serves a routing 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?

For a 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies the conditional requirement, the error behavior, the routing trigger, and the sibling alternative. Only the success response shape and state-transition semantics are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties the `evidence` parameter to a specific semantic requirement (real observed output such as test result, HTTP status, exit code) and couples it conditionally to status='verified'. That is meaningfully beyond the bare schema text.

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+resource ('Flip a task's status') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling goal_advance, which handles board-level tasks. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given ('user reports finishing a piece of tracked work' with concrete phrases), an exclusion is stated ('ignore unrelated casual chatter'), and the alternative tool is named for the board-level case. This is close to ideal routing guidance.

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