set_task_state

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the state value must be a key returned by list_task_states, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 front-loads the action and resource while including the necessary key-source instruction. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema information.

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 two simple parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides the needed prerequisite (state keys from list_task_states) for correct invocation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool appropriately.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'state' is a key returned by list_task_states, which is essential; 'task_id' is left to its self-explanatory title. This is strong compensation for the main ambiguous 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?

States a specific action ('set') on a specific resource ('a task's Odoo state') and names the source of valid values ('list_task_states'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_task_states, update_task, and move_task_to_stage.

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 implies the prerequisite workflow: obtain a key from list_task_states before calling this tool. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer alternatives, but the 'Odoo state' qualifier and key-source hint provide sufficient contextual guidance.

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