task_enable

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirmation gate, the dry-run semantics, and the read-back of the flag, but says nothing about what happens if the task is already enabled, required permissions, or reversibility of the enable action.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the precondition that changes the outcome. No filler wording, and the dry-run caveat lands before an agent commits to a call.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, the confirmation gate, and roughly what comes back (before/after flag, would-run call list). The shape of the dry-run payload and the meaning of "task" beyond an id remain slightly underspecified.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the consequence of omitting confirm (only would-run calls are returned), which is meaning beyond the schema's terse "Must be true to actually run".

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?

"Enables a backup task and reads the flag back (reports before/after)" gives a specific verb plus resource and even names the verification behavior, which separates it naturally from the task_disable sibling. It stops short of an explicit contrast statement, so it is clear rather than exemplary.

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 clearly gates two modes: with confirm:true the task is actually enabled, without it only the calls that would run are returned — an effective dry-run preview. It does not name any alternative tool or exclusion, so context is clear but selection guidance against siblings is absent.

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