edit_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses revision-based optimistic concurrency, immutability of task IDs, and the empty-dependencies clearing behavior. It does not discuss authorization, reversibility, or error conditions, but the provided behavioral constraints are meaningful.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and then adds compact, high-value constraints about immutability and dependency removal.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine how to populate required parameters like `expected_revision` and `actor_id`, or whether 'Role' refers to `role` or `task_role`. The existence of an output schema reduces return-value concerns, but invocation semantics remain under-specified.

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. It clarifies `dependencies` and partially clarifies text and role, but leaves `expected_revision`, `actor_id`, `plan_id`, `priority`, `reason`, and the relationship between `role` and `task_role` 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 states a specific verb ('Edit'), a resource ('a pending task'), and the editable aspects ('text, required Role, or dependencies') with a concurrency mechanism. It is clear enough, though it leaves ambiguity between the `role` and `task_role` parameters and does not distinguish itself from the sibling `update_task`.

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 intended context is implied: use this when modifying a pending task's text, role, or dependencies. It also gives a useful special case (`dependencies=[]` removes all dependencies), but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it differs from `update_task` or other task-related siblings.

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