task_start

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

All four annotation hints are false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals persistence behavior ('persisting under .agentpack/'), a conditional refusal to overwrite active tasks, and the writeScope gate requirement. These are genuine behavioral traits beyond what the schema or annotations provide. Lacks mention of return values or side effects on failure, but is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage conditions and a critical parameter hint. No filler or repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and uninformative annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: creation, persistence, current-task semantics, refusal conditions, and gate interaction. It does not explain return values or error handling, but for a create tool with this richness, it is largely complete. Minor gap: no mention of what happens to an existing current task besides refusal, but that is implied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by singling out writeScope: 'Declare writeScope so the task gate can protect the task's boundaries' – explaining why this parameter matters and how it interacts with the system. This extra context goes beyond the schema's basic description of the field.

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 opens with 'Create a new Task Passport and make it current, persisting it under .agentpack/' – a specific verb (create), resource (Task Passport), and outcome (make current). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like task_park or task_finalize, which manage existing tasks rather than creating them.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call when starting a coherent phase of work and no task is active'. It also provides exclusions and alternatives: 'it refuses to replace an active, blocked, or verifying current task — park or finalize that task first'. This gives clear when/when-not guidance and names alternative tools.

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