Add new tasks to a crystal or mark existing tasks done by passing a crystal ID, action, and task description or ID.
Add or complete a task in a crystal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: add or done | |
| crystal_id | Yes | Crystal identifier | |
| description_or_id | Yes | Task description (for add) or task ID (for done) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It is a mutation tool (adds state, marks tasks done) yet says nothing about idempotency, whether 'done' fails on an unknown ID, who may invoke it, or what happens to the crystal on completion.
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 eight-word sentence, front-loaded with both verbs and the resource, with no filler. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but as structure goes it is clean and waste-free.
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?
Three required parameters, a mutation semantic, no annotations, and no output schema — yet the description is one clause. Nothing explains the dual-purpose description_or_id parameter or the consequences of each action, so an agent must infer behavior entirely from field names.
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 100%, so all three parameters (action enum, crystal_id, description_or_id with its dual add/done semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 pair plus resource: 'Add or complete a task in a crystal.' An agent can tell it manipulates tasks rather than goals, leases, or slices. However, it does not name crystal_goal_transition, the near-identical sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus crystal_goal_transition or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or context. The description only restates the two operations without saying which situations call for each.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.