task_sort

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false; the description supplies the crucial missing fact that this call destroys any order previously set via task_move, which annotations cannot convey. Gaps remain on scope (whole task graph vs. a subset) and reversibility, but the destructive consequence is front and center.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler; the effect and the destructive scope are both front-loaded.

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, the description covers the core effect and its main hazard, but leaves an aggregation-level question unanswered: does this reorder every task, or only a subset selected by 'by'? The single parameter is entirely unaddressed, which is thin even for a one-parameter tool.

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 0% for the single 'by' parameter, so the description must carry its meaning — yet 'by' is never mentioned. Worse, 'Reset the execution order to phase, then id' reads as a fixed order, which an agent could take as contradicting the existence of an ordering parameter.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Reset the execution order to phase, then id', naming both sort keys and explicitly distinguishing it from task_move, which sets custom order. The one weakness is that it presents the ordering as fixed even though the schema exposes a 'by' parameter, so the stated purpose is slightly narrower than the tool's real surface.

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?

The sentence implicitly routes the agent: use task_sort to revert to canonical phase/id order, and use task_move when a manual order is wanted. It also warns that the operation discards existing order, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of an explicit when-not or precondition statement.

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