start_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the permissive transition behavior ('Works from any status') and the unusual-transition feedback ('you'll get a note if the transition is unusual'). Minor omissions like permissions and audit logging are acceptable for a simple status change.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose plus trigger, behavioral nuance, and the next lifecycle step. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: purpose, trigger condition, prerequisite behavior, unusual-case feedback, and the next step. The output schema covers return values, so no description of those 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no format or source for task_id (e.g., that it comes from create_task or list_tickets). However, task_id is a single self-explanatory string within an obvious lifecycle, so the practical harm of the missing detail is minimal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Transition a task to in-progress.' The target state is explicit and clearly distinguishes the tool from lifecycle siblings like complete_task, verify_task, and create_task without needing to open their schemas.

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 names the trigger condition: 'call this when you begin working on a task.' It also names the follow-up alternative ('After finishing, call complete_task') and removes prerequisite ambiguity with 'Works from any status.'

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