task_fail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the FAILED state and that a reason is recorded, but not whether this is terminal, whether the task can be re-claimed or retried afterwards, whether it requires prior ownership via task_claim, or whether the operation is reversible. For a state-mutating tool on a task workflow, these are meaningful gaps.

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 tightly written sentence with the essential state change front-loaded after the 'explicitly' qualifier. Efficient, though the leading adverb adds little.

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 simple two-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action. It is incomplete regarding lifecycle consequences (terminal state, retry semantics, ordering relative to task_claim) that an agent orchestrating a task workflow would need.

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% and both parameters (taskId, reason) are self-documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'records reason' merely restates the schema, adding no format, length, or constraint detail. Baseline 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 and resource: 'marks a task as FAILED and records reason.' An agent immediately understands the state transition and the side effect. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling task_complete, so it falls short of 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative task_complete (or what to do if a task is merely blocked, not failed). The agent must infer that this is the terminal failure path rather than the success path.

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