task_ready

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds the crucial state effects beyond that: the worker lease is released but the task tree stays reserved during verification. That lease/tree distinction is real behavioral value, though the description never explains why the action is flagged destructive or what a repeated call does.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the resulting state. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but none is needed: the description already conveys the outcome (lease released, tree still reserved). Since the definition is otherwise complete for a handoff tool, the lack of a return schema is not a material gap.

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 only 25% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The required 'id' and the nested 'result'/'evidence' objects are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to 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 and resource: marking implementation ready for verification plus releasing the worker lease. The handoff framing distinguishes it conceptually from the verifier-side sibling task_verify, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Worker handoff' — an agent can infer this is called by a worker when implementation is done. There is no explicit statement of when not to call it or which sibling (task_update, task_cancel, task_reconcile) handles adjacent cases.

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