cos_task_edit

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation), the description adds that each change is recorded to an actor-attributed edit history. This is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose and the key audit behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, is a mutation operation, and has an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify update semantics (e.g., merge vs. replace), which fields are considered frontmatter, or the roles of actor-related parameters. The output schema exists but cannot answer these behavioral questions. This is a clear gap.

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 0%, and the description does not enumerate or explain any of the 11 parameters. While some parameter names are self-explanatory (title, body, priority), others like actor_id, actor_type, source, and labels_csv lack behavioral meaning. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of textual detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('task's frontmatter fields and/or body'), clearly distinguishing it from creation, moving, or viewing tools. The actor-attributed history note adds important scope. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 implies usage for modifying existing tasks but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling task tools. It is adequate but relies on the reader to infer context.

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