Set active subtask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a mutation and that it returns the updated state, plus the CLI equivalent, but it never says what happens to a previously active subtask, whether the title overwrites an existing one, or what error conditions look like.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and packs the CLI equivalence into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 two-parameter state mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what changes and that state is returned. It omits the side effects on the prior active subtask and any indication of failure behavior, which an agent would need before calling it in a workflow.

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%, with taskId and title both documented in the schema (including title's optionality), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the CLI signature hint '[id] [title]', which restates rather than extends schema semantics.

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 and resource: mark a subtask as in progress, returning updated state. That distinguishes it implicitly from lognexus_state_finish_task and lognexus_state_get, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'in progress' framing implies this is the tool to call when starting or resuming work on a subtask, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no pointer to finish_task/state_get for the adjacent operations.

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