sage_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job, revealing critical non-obvious behaviors: content is immutable, creation is permanently idempotent (repeating returns the original even after done/dropped), domain handling (explicit never remapped, omitted uses home domain), and persistence semantics. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 relatively long but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage modes, persistence, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and logically progresses to specific behaviors. The density is justified by the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly tighter or better structured with bullet points.

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 6 optional parameters, three distinct operation modes, and no output schema or annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers all operation modes, key behavioral constraints, and edge cases (e.g., idempotency with done/dropped tasks). No critical operational information appears to be missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context: it explains the three usage modes that correspond to parameter combinations, clarifies the idempotency_key derivation and consequences, and elaborates on the domain default. This adds value beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination, 'Create or update a task in your persistent backlog,' and goes on to clarify the tool's unique value proposition: tasks are persistent memories that don't decay. It explicitly lists use cases ('planned work, feature ideas, bug reports, and anything that should survive across sessions'), distinguishing it from siblings like sage_remember or sage_message_reply.

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 usage instructions: create with content, update with memory_id+status, link with memory_id+link_to. It also states when to use the tool ('Use this to track...') and explains the idempotency behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when *not* to use this tool, which would earn a 5.

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