task_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the ownership transfer effect, but lacks disclosure of side effects, idempotency characteristics, or authorization requirements. The description explains what happens functionally but not operational traits like 'safe to retry' or 'requires admin scope'.

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 with zero waste: first defines the operation mechanics, second provides workflow context. Information is front-loaded with the core action ('Resolve a delegated task') and every sentence 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?

Appropriate for a low-complexity state-transition tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains the business logic (ownership restoration) that structured fields cannot convey. Minor gap: does not indicate what constitutes success (empty response vs task object) but covers the essential behavioral contract.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object), meeting the baseline expectation for tools with no arguments. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation since there are no fields to describe.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action (resolve a delegated task), the resource affected (ownership), and the outcome (returning to original owner). It distinguishes itself from siblings like task_complete or task_delegate by specifically targeting the 'delegated' state reversal.

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 temporal guidance ('Use after the delegate has completed their work') establishing the correct point in the workflow lifecycle. Implies the prerequisite state (task must be delegated) though could more explicitly contrast with task_complete for cases where the task should be finished rather than returned.

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