Set or clear the review and verification profile for a planned task before work starts, using profiles defined in taskgate.toml. Planners can assign a name or clear it.
Set or clear the review/verification profile of a draft/planned task (profiles are defined in taskgate.toml, e.g. a docs profile without review). Not allowed once the task has started. Planners only; pass name or clear=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | Yes | ||
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| clear | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context: mutation of review profile, that profiles come from taskgate.toml, the started-task restriction, and the planner permission requirement. It doesn't describe the return or error behavior, but the added context is substantial.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by constraints and the parameter hint. No filler.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers behavior and constraints well but omits what 'id' and 'by' mean, leaving an agent to infer them. Adequate but with a real gap.
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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It explains 'name' (profile defined in taskgate.toml) and 'clear=true', but leaves 'id' and 'by' unexplained in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates.
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+resource pair ('Set or clear the review/verification profile') scoped to draft/planned tasks. It's clearly distinct from siblings like task_update or task_show, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative for the same job.
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?
'Not allowed once the task has started' and 'Planners only' give explicit preconditions and exclusions. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the when/when-not conditions are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.