verify_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the state mutation ('Sets the task to verified'), the prerequisite flexibility ('works from any status'), and the evidence requirement. It does not discuss reversibility or side effects, but core behavior is transparent.

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 three sentences with no filler. The purpose, example, parameter guidance, and sequencing advice are all front-loaded and each sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple three-parameter state-transition tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, evidence semantics, commit labelling, call ordering, and the resulting state. Minor omissions include reversibility and side effects, but they are not essential for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for commit ('short commit hash... labelled consistently') and evidence with a concrete example. task_id is left implicit, though its purpose is self-evident from the parameter name and required status.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Verify a task with evidence that the work holds') and gives a concrete example. It also states the resulting state change ('Sets the task to verified'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling complete_task.

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 explicitly advises 'Ideally call complete_task first to capture notes, but this works from any status,' giving sequencing and an alternative. It also explains why the commit hash should be passed, though it does not enumerate exclusions or every alternative.

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