Submit Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the filesystem move, the appended transition event, and the v2 no-op behavior. An agent can predict concrete side effects before calling the tool.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the essential state transition is front-loaded. The no-op warning is included without expanding the description unnecessarily.

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 state-transition tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly: the transition, the file location, the event append, and the v2 exception.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds lifecycle context but no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which fits the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 and resource, 'Submit an active task for review', and defines an exact state transition: active → review. This clearly differentiates it from sibling lifecycle tools like finish_task, approve_task, and reject_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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is for moving an active task into review, which is the context of use. The explicit 'On v2 projects this is a no-op' caveat gives important conditional guidance, though no sibling tool is named as an alternative.

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