Auto Prune Stale Tasks

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the automatic transition behavior and the inactivity criterion, but it does not disclose whether the operation is a bulk action, whether it is reversible, what happens when no matching tasks exist, or any side effects like changing history. It adds some value but leaves notable behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core functionality and criteria effectively.

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 adequately explains what it does but omits any indication of return value, result format, or edge-case behavior. It also does not mention that all parameters are optional or how the tool behaves when no project is specified. It is minimally viable but leaves room for more complete context.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. The description mentions the threshold concept but does not add detail beyond the schema for older_than, target_status, or project.

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 tool's verb ('transition'), resource ('in_progress tasks'), and scope ('inactive ... idle longer than a threshold'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_stale_nodes by explicitly indicating a state-changing action rather than just retrieval.

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 description implies usage for cleaning up stale in-progress tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_stale_nodes, complete_task, or batch_update. It lacks any 'use this when' or 'instead of' statements.

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