Declare a task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It explicitly states that the task remains UNCLAIMED, that the tool commits and pushes to '.hub/tasks/', and that it returns both 'conflicts' and 'recentActivityNearby' to catch teammates mid-edit. These are exactly the side effects and behavioral nuances an agent needs to know.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and inputs, the second clarifies ownership semantics, the third discloses side effects, and the fourth explains return values and required checks. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers most essential operational context: what it writes, what it returns, and what to do next. It names the return fields with explanations, but does not describe the exact structure of 'conflicts' or 'recentActivityNearby', nor any failure modes. For a 5-parameter tool with no schema on return values, this is still a strong, mostly complete description.

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 60%, and the description adds meaningful context for the main parameters: 'scope' is defined as file paths, module names, or API routes; 'interface' and 'assumptions' are framed as optional. It does not mention 'memberName', but the schema already documents its default behavior, so this is a minor gap. Overall, the description compensates for the schema's missing parameter details for title and assumptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Propose a task' with title, scope, optional interface, and assumptions. It also names the exact artifact it touches ('.hub/tasks/') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling 'claim_task' by noting the task is left unclaimed. This makes it easy for an agent to select this tool over its siblings.

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 says when to use this tool vs. alternatives: call it to propose a task, then call 'claim_task' if you intend to build it yourself, so teammates can otherwise pick it up. It also instructs the agent to check 'conflicts' and 'recentActivityNearby' before proceeding, giving concrete next-step guidance. This is unusually clear usage direction.

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