execute_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It opens with 'MUTATING:', clearly flags side effects, and reveals the 'Uses --always-approve' behavior. It also mentions the scope of actions (file edits, tests, shell) and output (session_id). Missing some details like reversibility, but still strong.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: mutation warning, purpose, usage condition, verification, and output. It is front-loaded with 'MUTATING' and avoids filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers approval prerequisites, verification steps, and the returned session_id. It does not elaborate on background execution or timeout behaviors, but the schema covers those. The description is sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it doesn't need to given schema richness. It mentions the session_id return value, which relates to an output concept, not parameter meaning.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delegate implementation to Grok (file edits, tests, shell)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Returns session_id for continue_task', implying a handoff workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling run_task.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: 'Only call after the user approved a plan or explicitly asked to implement'. It also gives post-usage guidance: 'Verify with git diff/tests afterwards'. This is clear, actionable, and addresses when-not-to-use.

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