task_park

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context: parking preserves verification state and is resumable, and it does not finalize. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify the exact behavioral semantics, though it doesn't mention any authorization needs or additional side effects.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states the action and benefit, second explains the intended use case, third provides a critical exclusion. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers its purpose, usage context, exclusions, and related tools (task_switch, task_finalize). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is no parameter information to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 action ('Mark the current Task Passport parked') and its purpose ('so unrelated work can start without finalizing it'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly contrasting with task_finalize and mentioning task_switch for resumption.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('intentionally deferred work'), explains what it preserves, and gives a clear exclusion ('Do not park to skip verification of finished work') with the correct alternative tool named (task_finalize). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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