task_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context: the operation is scoped to lease ownership and is the terminal failure branch rather than the success branch. It does not say what happens to the task afterward (re-queue vs. permanent failure) or whether the lease is released, which keeps it from a 5.

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, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the routing constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description establishes the workflow context and correct routing but omits parameter-level detail (error/evidence semantics) and post-call state behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 20% (only leaseId is documented). The description loosely maps to the action enum via 'failure or interruption', but adds nothing about the error payload, the evidence object, or the id field, 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 (report) plus the exact conditions (failure or interruption) and the resource (worker task ownership). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the success path by naming task_ready/task_verify, so an agent can tell what this tool is not for.

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 states when to use it (worker failure or interruption while owning the task) and when not to (successful work must go through task_ready then task_verify). The alternative path is named, not implied.

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