agent_abandon_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two side effects: setting status in working-memory and clearing the active-task pointer. It omits what happens if the task is not active, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, and error behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and then enumerate side effects; every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter documentation, the description is adequate on side effects but silent on failure modes, reversibility, and the reason parameter's effect, leaving real gaps.

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 only 33% — only 'reason' is documented. The description adds no meaning for agent_id, task_id, or reason, and does not compensate for the undocumented required parameters, leaving the schema and description jointly incomplete.

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+resource (mark an active task as abandoned) and names the two concrete side effects, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never differentiates itself from closely-named siblings like close_agent_task or agent_dry_run_close_task, so an agent must infer why 'abandon' is distinct from 'close'.

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 phrase 'active task' implies the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as close_agent_task. Usage is only implied.

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