cos_task_ready

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the role of the 'ready' label in the workflow. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-read-only behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It clarifies the mutation's purpose without needing to repeat safety traits.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy; it is front-loaded with the core verb and object.

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's simplicity, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, and an output schema is present, so return values are covered. However, it lacks explicit parameter guidance and alternative tool references, which are minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It mentions the 'ready' label, which maps to the 'ready' boolean parameter, but it does not explain task_id or agent_session. This leaves parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add or remove the ready label that gates icebox→in_progress.' It identifies the specific resource (the ready label) and the action (add/remove), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cos_task_move or cos_task_edit by focusing on the gate label.

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 clear context by explaining that the ready label gates the transition from icebox to in_progress, implying when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide selection.

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