score_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. 'Score' implies a mutation (likely updating a score value), but the description doesn't specify what scoring does (e.g., affects user stats, triggers rewards), whether it's reversible, or any side effects. It mentions 'habits only' for the direction parameter but doesn't explain why or the broader behavioral impact.

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 extremely concise ('Score task / habit') but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with potential complexity (scoring tasks/habits), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what scoring entails, the expected outcomes, or how it integrates with other tools like 'get_stats' or 'get_tasks'. For a tool that likely affects user progress or rewards, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (taskId and direction with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the scoring mechanism or how direction applies differently to tasks vs. habits. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Score task / habit' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'score_task' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions both 'task' and 'habit' but doesn't clarify what 'scoring' means operationally or how it differs from similar tools like 'score_checklist_item'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from sibling tools like 'score_checklist_item' or 'update_task' despite the server having multiple task-related tools.

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