write_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses overwrite semantics ("Write or overwrite"), which is a real behavioral trait for an unannotated mutation tool. However, it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what happens to an existing task file's other content.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first. The trailing parenthetical is slightly cryptic but brief and does add pipeline context.

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 an unannotated, no-output-schema mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent gets the location convention but not the naming constraint, content expectations, or error/overwrite behavior needed to call it confidently.

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 both required parameters (name, content) are undocumented in the schema. The description only implies that 'name' maps to a file under tasks/ and never explains the name pattern or what 'content' should contain, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (write/overwrite) and resource (a task file under tasks/), and the parenthetical explains its role in the harness pipeline. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like read_run_file or prepare_stage_prompt, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 call this vs. alternatives such as prepare_stage_prompt or start_run, nor any preconditions. The parenthetical hints at pipeline context but gives no routing logic.

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