start_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: 'auto-claims' indicates ownership mutation and 'sets active timer' reveals side effects on tracking state. However, it omits error scenarios (e.g., already claimed) and idempotency guarantees.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste: the main clause establishes purpose and the parenthetical adds critical behavioral differentiation. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant explanations.

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 two-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the core operation and primary side effects. It appropriately omits return value details (no output schema exists), though it could strengthen completeness by noting error conditions or claim collision behavior.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies the purpose of parameters (needing an ID to start work and implicit agent identity for claiming) but does not explicitly elaborate on parameter semantics, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 provides a specific verb ('Start working') and resource ('task'), with the parenthetical clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_task or update_task by specifying it 'auto-claims and sets active timer'—revealing this is about work session initiation, not just status modification.

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?

While 'Start working' implies the general context, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings (stop_task, complete_task) or prerequisites (e.g., task existence, claim availability). No 'when-not' conditions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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