set_task_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the operation does NOT extend the lease, that it fails with 409 on expired claims, and that the state is visible via list_tasks/get_task. It also mentions 'Hosted API only'. This is comprehensive for an action tool.

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 concise (4 sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then provides context. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool achieves (state set, visible elsewhere) and under what conditions (active claim required). It lacks explicit mention of return value, but that is unnecessary for a state-setting operation. It is complete for its purpose.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), but the tool description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of 'state' values and providing examples for 'detail' ('needs prod API key', 'build failed: missing dep'). This goes beyond the schema's basic labels.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report the session state' and identifies the resource 'a task you have claimed'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like heartbeat_task (which extends lease) and complete_task. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('Use this to flag that you are blocked on input or hit an error') and explains the benefit ('the claim stays visible as held-but-stuck instead of faking liveness'). It also notes a failure condition ('Fails with 409 if you no longer hold an active claim'). It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., to extend lease, use heartbeat_task), but the context is sufficient.

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