manage_launch_task

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that by mentioning delete. It adds context by specifying failure conditions and return behavior (created/updated task object or confirmation on delete). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the exact conditions under which the tool fails, which is valuable for an agent.

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?

The description is concise, starting with the core purpose, followed by a 'USE WHEN' list, action-parameter mapping, return info, and failure conditions. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical information. No wasted words, though the layout could be slightly more compact; still efficient.

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?

The description covers usage triggers, required parameters per action, failure conditions, and return types. With no output schema, it adequately describes what to expect. It also mentions how to get valid IDs, covering a common pitfall. Slightly more detail on response format for updates could be added, but overall it is complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds semantic context by specifying which parameters are required for each action (e.g., create needs name+section_id, update/delete need task_id). It also advises using list_users for valid assigned_user_id values, which adds practical guidance not present in the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Create, update, or delete' with the specific resource 'launch task'. The description explicitly enumerates the three actions and their required parameters, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling manage_* tools (e.g., manage_launch, manage_launch_section).

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?

Provides explicit usage triggers ('Add task', 'Mark complete', 'Assign task', 'Delete task') and maps each to the appropriate action. It also tells the agent where to obtain IDs (get_launch_tasks for task_id, list_users for assigned_user_id), which is crucial for correct invocation. The 'FAILS WHEN' section clarifies error conditions, giving clear guidance on when not to use it or what is required.

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