start_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses atomicity, assignment/claim behavior, and the three failure preconditions. However, it does not explain what the force parameter actually overrides, nor whether permissions or workflow rules can also cause failure.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The core action and atomicity are front-loaded, followed by failure conditions and the sibling-tool routing advice, with no wasted text.

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 no-annotation mutation tool, it covers purpose, side effect, failure modes, and alternatives well. The main remaining gap is the exact semantics of force and whether it can bypass all stated failure conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies the id parameter's role and the atomic claim/transition behavior, but adds no meaning for force beyond the schema's terse 'take it anyway'.

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 compound action: claim a backlog task and move it to in-progress atomically. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the assign_task + change_task_status combination and names the Jira equivalent.

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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of assign_task + change_task_status when several agents share a board. Also states the precise failure conditions where the tool should not succeed, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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