taskhub_task_ai_usage_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the critical behavior of never estimating tokens and requiring client-reported usage. However, it does not mention idempotency via executionId, the write/mutation nature beyond 'record', potential side effects, or response/error behavior. These are significant gaps for a recording tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the key constraint stated right after. There is zero fluff; every word contributes meaning. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is lean. It covers the essential behavioral rule (no estimation, client-sourced data) but does not explicitly state when in a workflow to invoke it (e.g., after an AI call), what the return value signifies, or how to handle statuses like 'partial'. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks enough usage context to be fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond stating the tool is provider-agnostic; it does not explain relationships between fields like reasonCode vs. reason or clarify the meaning of statuses. This is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness, but the description adds little value here.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('one provider-agnostic AI usage execution for a task'). It is unambiguous and does not merely restate the tool name. The phrase 'never estimates tokens from task content' further clarifies its scope, distinguishing it from potential estimation-based tools.

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 provides a key usage condition: 'Usage must come from the reporting client' and 'this tool never estimates tokens from task content.' This implicitly tells an agent when to use it (when actual usage data is available) and when not to (when only task content exists). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but none of the siblings directly compete, so the guidance is adequate.

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