task_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: how parked targets with different verification states are treated (resume active vs verifying and frozen), and that it updates a pointer under .agentpack/. It does not mention what happens if the id is invalid or permissions required, but given the tool's semantics, this is acceptable.

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 concise: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by necessary behavioral details and prerequisites. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main action, prerequisites, and behavioral transitions. It lacks explicit mention of error cases (e.g., invalid id) or return value, but references to sibling tools (task_list) help. Overall, it is mostly complete for safe usage.

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% (1 parameter with description). The description adds value by stating the id is for a Task Passport and referencing task_list to obtain valid ids. This goes beyond the schema's basic string type description.

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 'make current' and resource 'Task Passport' with a specific condition (by id). It distinguishes from siblings like task_park, task_finalize, task_start by focusing on switching the current pointer. The detailed behavior for parked targets with different verification states adds specificity.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to switch to another open task. It provides clear prerequisites: 'Park or finalize a different active, blocked, or verifying current task first'. It also specifies a limitation: 'closed tasks cannot be switched to'. This gives the agent clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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