agent_repair_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a mutation which 'rebuilds or clears the active-task pointer' and that it is attempted only when safe, but it omits what state is destroyed by clearing, required permissions, reversibility, and behavior on failure.

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 with the action front-loaded and the scoping constraint immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 undocumented parameters, the description covers the core action but leaves preconditions, failure modes, and result semantics unaddressed. Adequate minimum, but not 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?

One parameter (agent_id) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — it never mentions agent_id or which agent's state is targeted. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, limiting the damage, but no added meaning is provided.

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 (repair) plus resource (agent task lifecycle state) and narrows scope to the active-task pointer. It is distinguishable from siblings like agent_verify_state and agent_append_task_state, though it never names them directly.

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 'when it can do so safely' implies a conditional context for invocation, but the description never says when to use this instead of agent_verify_state, agent_append_task_state, or agent_abandon_task. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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