recover_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the authorization requirement ('declared Role needs recover_task permission') and the state transition, but it does not explain concurrency behavior via expected_revision, failure modes, or whether recovery is idempotent.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and result, then adds permission context with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a five-parameter mutation with no annotations, and the description omits parameter meaning and concurrency/failure behavior, despite naming the state transition and permission. The output schema reduces the need to describe return shape, but invocation correctness is still 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%, and the description only hints that 'role' must hold recover_task permission. It does not clarify task_id, actor_id, plan_id, or expected_revision, leaving the agent without adequate parameter meaning for invocation.

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?

States a specific state transition ('Recover a blocked task to pending') with a clear verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling task operations like edit_task, cancel_task, or claim_task even without naming them.

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 implies usage for blocked tasks that need to return to pending, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The permission requirement is useful but is not guidance about choosing this tool over siblings.

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