task_switch

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

The description states that switching changes the current Task Passport and that closed tasks are invalid. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether the previous task is preserved, which is important given the lack of annotations.

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: two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and follows with a constraint. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the constraint more naturally, but overall it is efficient.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after switching, whether a return value indicates success, or prerequisites like having an active Task Passport. For a tool with many siblings, more context is needed.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond identifying it as the task id and that it must be open. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail is needed (e.g., format, source of valid ids) to help the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 (switch) and resource (current Task Passport to another open task by id) with an example of resuming a parked task. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'resume', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides a usage example (resuming a parked task) and a constraint (cannot switch to closed tasks), but it lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when to prefer this tool over siblings such as 'resume' or 'task_handoff'.

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