task_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses creation behavior, persistence under .agentpack/, and refusal logic. It also mentions writeScope for boundary protection. Lacks explicit mention of return value or side effects, but covers core mutation behavior well.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: first states action, second states usage context, third adds a key note. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints adequately for a creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It does not describe return values, but that is not required if output schema is absent. Slight gap in explaining the full lifecycle (e.g., what happens after creation), but sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond emphasizing writeScope's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new Task Passport and make it current', specifying the verb, resource, and action. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that it refuses to replace an active, blocked, or verifying task, implying alternatives like park or finalize.

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'. Also provides when not to use and what to do instead: 'it refuses to replace an active, blocked, or verifying current task — park or finalize that task first'.

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