task_switch

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

Annotations mark this as destructive, and the description adds detailed state-transition behavior for parked targets with different verification states, plus the side effect of updating the .agentpack/ pointer. This goes beyond the annotation flags for a mutating operation.

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 focused: purpose, behavioral nuance, and precondition/side effect. Front-loaded with the core action; no redundant wording.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, state transitions, preconditions, and side effects. All necessary operational context is present, handling the tool's complexity well.

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%, with the 'id' parameter described as 'Task Passport id to switch to (see task_list).' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the id is used, so baseline 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 explicitly states the action ('Make another open Task Passport current by id'), specifying the resource and operation. It distinguishes from siblings like task_start and task_park by focusing on changing the current-task pointer, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states a prerequisite ('Park or finalize a different active, blocked, or verifying current task first') and an exclusion ('closed tasks cannot be switched to'), giving concrete guidance on when it can be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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