Taskgraph Update

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already marks this as a write operation. The description adds value by specifying the allowed state values and implying a precondition ('after acting on it'), which clarifies the behavioral contract beyond the simple write flag.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the purpose and key constraint without verbosity.

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 simple state-update tool, the description covers its main purpose, the acceptable state transitions, and a usage hint. It does not mention output or side effects, but these are not critical for such a basic operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has zero descriptions for its three parameters. The description indirectly hints that 'state' accepts the listed values, but task_id and note are not explained at all. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 a specific action: marking a task with one of four explicit states (done, failed, blocked, skipped). This verb+resource+outcome combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like taskgraph_view and taskgraph_next.

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 phrase 'after acting on it' provides a clear timing/usage guideline, indicating the tool should be called after the corresponding action has been performed. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the primary trigger is well implied.

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