Start work on a task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states the core state transition, omitting details like what happens if the task is already in progress, whether the call is idempotent, or any permission requirements. The description is too thin for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the essential action and timing in a compact form, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to document the parameter, potential edge cases, or behavioral constraints. While the tool is conceptually simple, the absence of parameter semantics and error handling makes it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly in all situations.

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 schema has a single parameter (taskId) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since the schema provides no description and the description doesn't compensate, the agent is left uninformed about how to specify which task to mark in progress, especially given that the parameter is not marked as required.

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 action ('Mark a task in progress') with a specific resource (a task) and a defined state change. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'mark_ready_for_review' or 'submit_task_resolution' by focusing on the pre-editing status transition.

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 phrase 'before you begin editing' provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the temporal cue is sufficient for a simple state-change tool, making it easy to select among siblings.

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