Mark a claimed task as failed in the brainy queue by supplying its task ID, claim token, and reason. Repeated calls are idempotent, so retries do not alter the failure state.
Mark a task as failed (idempotent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| claim_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the parenthetical '(idempotent)' merely repeats structured data and earns no credit. The description adds nothing about what failing a task does beyond the state change, whether the claim is consumed, or any required permission.
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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with no wasted words, but the terseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 state-mutating tool with a required claim token, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It omits the claim prerequisite and the effect of the operation, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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% across all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and does not. It says nothing about task_id, the required claim_token, or the optional reason, leaving the meaning of claim_token entirely undocumented.
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 verb and resource: 'Mark a task as failed'. An agent can tell this transitions a task into a failed state. However, it offers no differentiation from closely-related siblings like reject_task or complete_task, which also terminate a task's lifecycle.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus reject_task, complete_task, or release_task, nor any stated prerequisites (such as needing to hold a claim first). The agent must infer positioning in the task lifecycle entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.