start_task

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: enforcing phase gates before execution. This goes beyond simply saying it marks a node, but with no annotations, it still leaves gaps such as what happens on gate failure, whether the action is reversible, or required permissions. The description provides some visibility into the tool's behavior but not comprehensive detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and state change, then adding the gate condition. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a critical behavioral constraint (phase gates). It could be more complete by describing failure scenarios or return values, but for a tool of this simplicity, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents nodeId as 'ID of the node to start' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline for full schema coverage. There is no need for further parameter explanation given the single, well-defined parameter.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('task node') with a clear state target ('IN_PROGRESS'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_task_node or reset_task_node by focusing on starting work. It also mentions the phase gate enforcement, which further defines its unique role.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to start working on a task node. It also adds that phase gates are enforced, giving a condition for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., get_ready_tasks) for finding eligible nodes.

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