ds_force_task_success

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the operation is 'dangerous,' bypasses actual execution, and only changes the state flag. This is highly transparent about the tool's side effects and limitations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a clear warning. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy. The formatting with a warning emoji effectively highlights the danger.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 simple params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides key context: purpose, danger, usage condition, and non-behavior. It is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisites or consequences of misuse, but those are largely implied by the warning.

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 0% coverage—neither parameter has a description. The tool description does not explain 'project_name' or 'task_instance_id' at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the self-explanatory parameter names. This is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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: 'Force mark a task as success' and explicitly distinguishes it from actual execution by noting it 'bypasses actual execution' and 'only changes the state flag.' This makes it distinct from siblings like rerun or skip tools.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use only when task is stuck/failed but you've verified data correctness.' It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do ('does NOT rerun the task'), which helps prevent misapplication. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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