swsd_update_task_state

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

Annotations already carry write/idempotent/destructive/openWorld hints; the description adds real context beyond them by stating that re-applying the same value is a no-op and by naming the exact state transitions (Completed vs. New). It stops short of covering permission requirements, error behavior, or side effects on related task fields, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key parameter mapping, then a routing note, then a terse write/idempotency tag. Four short units with no padding, though the trailing 'WRITE — idempotent' fragment is slightly clipped in style.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the idempotency contract, and the scope boundary against alternate state handling. Missing only peripheral detail such as auth prerequisites or failure modes.

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%, including the completed boolean-to-state mapping and the incident_id auto-detection rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the completed semantics ('revert to "New"') but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 SWSD incident sub-task as complete or incomplete.' The phrase 'incident sub-task' scopes it precisely and separates it from the incident-level sibling swsd_update_incident_state without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Explicitly defines the when ('the common done/not-done transition') and the when-not with a routing instruction ('For finer state control (e.g., "In Progress"), use the SWSD UI directly'). The alternative for out-of-scope cases is named, so nothing is left to inference.

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