start_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the task must currently be 'not started'), required permissions, rate limits, or idempotency. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, which is very concise. It is front-loaded with the essential action. However, it may be overly brief given the lack of supporting information, but for a simple tool it is acceptable.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. It also omits context about error handling, success criteria, or how the 'in progress' status affects downstream operations. The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the 'task_id' parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning to this parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to obtain or format the task identifier. This is a significant gap.

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 'Mark a task as in progress' clearly states the verb (Mark) and resource (task) and specifies the state change. It differentiates from siblings like 'complete_task' by the specific status, but could be more explicit about the transition from 'not started' to 'in progress'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'capture_task' or 'update_task'. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected context, or situations where other tools are more appropriate.

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