goldhold_plan_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists action verbs but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or what happens to dependent/blocked tasks when an action is applied.

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 a single sentence with the action list front-loaded and no filler. It could add mode-specific detail without becoming bloated, but as written it is compact and readable.

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?

This is a complex 7-action, 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description alone is far from sufficient. It omits mode-parameter mappings, required task_id behavior, dependency interactions, and the semantics of block/cancel/reorder.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate by explaining which parameters apply to which action. An agent is left to infer that task_id is needed for non-create actions, order for reorder, and title/description/owner/acceptance_criteria for create/update; the schema notes task_id but the description adds no value.

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 concrete resource ('tasks within a plan') and enumerates seven supported operations, so an agent knows this is a plan-scoped task dispatcher rather than a generic task tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling task tools, but 'within a plan' provides enough differentiation.

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 'within a plan' implies this tool is for plan tasks, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over siblings like goldhold_task_update, goldhold_task_create, or goldhold_task_complete, nor any exclusions.

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