ds_skip_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 by disclosing key behavior: the task is marked successful without running and downstream tasks proceed as if it succeeded. It adds a caution about non-critical use. However, it does not discuss reversibility, permissions, or effects on related process state.

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 and well-structured. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a clear warning and consequence. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 tool, the description covers the core action and important downstream risk. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent would still lack guidance on how to obtain the required IDs and when to prefer this tool over closely related ones like ds_force_task_success.

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 zero description coverage, only providing names and types. The tool description does not explain project_name or task_instance_id, where they come from, or how they relate. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 verb 'Skip' and the resource 'task', explaining 'mark as success without running'. This gives a specific action and outcome. It is distinguishable from siblings like ds_force_task_success because it emphasizes skipping execution, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 warning 'Use only for non-critical tasks (e.g., notifications)' provides explicit when-to-use guidance. It also implies a when-not-to-use for critical tasks, but it does not name alternative tools such as ds_force_task_success or ds_stop_process_instance, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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