task.execute

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

The description discloses two behavioral traits: changing status to 'in_progress' and providing an execution guide. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention preconditions, reversibility, or what happens if the task is already in_progress, partially meeting the transparency burden.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds meaningful information: starting execution and the status change plus guide provision.

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 no output schema, the description gives the core action but leaves ambiguity about what the 'execution guide' contains, any prerequisites, and how it relates to sibling tools like task.complete or task.verify. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 only parameter 'id' has a complete schema description ('Task ID'), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb '실행을 시작합니다' (starts execution) and clearly identifies the resource as Task. It also states two concrete actions: changing status to 'in_progress' and providing an execution guide, which distinguishes it from siblings like task.complete or task.update_status.

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 implies usage for starting task execution but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or state when not to use, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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