Answer a durable task's question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the target condition. It does not explain side effects of delivering input, whether the task resumes or changes state, idempotency, error behavior, or permission requirements. For a mutating action, this is a meaningful gap.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the key condition in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is no wasted phrasing.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It omits what happens after delivery, whether the task resumes, and how an agent should handle non-input_required tasks. The title adds slight context but does not fill these 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, but it only implies that 'response' is the asked-for input and 'taskId' identifies the paused task. It gives no detail on response format, constraints, or the relationship between taskId and the input_required state, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Deliver input') and names the exact target condition ('paused task (status input_required)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like durable_task_get and durable_task_cancel, which perform different operations on similar resources.

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 gives an implicit when-to-use condition: the task must have status input_required. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the status condition is specific enough for an agent to select this tool for paused tasks awaiting input.

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