Start a task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the operation changes which task is current, but it does not explain whether this also starts execution, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the previously current task.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 mutating, one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain the relationship to sp_task_control_set_current, nor does it provide enough behavioral context for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly in a broader workflow.

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 only parameter is id (a plain string). The description adds minimal meaning by implying the id identifies the task to set current, but it does not clarify id format, source, or validation rules beyond that inference.

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 and resource: it sets a given task as the current task. This is clear in isolation, but it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling sp_task_control_set_current, which likely performs the same operation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling sp_task_control_set_current appears to overlap with this tool's behavior, and the description gives no conditions, exclusions, or context to help an agent choose between them.

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