Start Detour

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral constraint ('Only one Detour can be open') and the branching semantics, which is useful. But it omits what happens if a detour is already open, what state the call creates, and any permissions or irreversibility considerations expected of a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the branching behavior, then the constraint. No filler, though the phrasing of the first sentence is slightly convoluted ('splitting off from the planned Tasks, before doing it').

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and one constraint but leaves the outcome of the call and the failure mode for a second detour unstated. Adequate to call correctly, incomplete for understanding consequences.

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% and both required parameters carry clear descriptions with examples, so the baseline is already met by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with two well-documented string params nothing more is needed.

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 concrete action ('Declare that the work is splitting off from the planned Tasks') and the resource it operates on (a Detour branching from the current Task). It implicitly contrasts with sibling start_task by framing the work as diverging from the plan, but it never names start_task or end_detour, so the differentiation stays inferential.

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?

'before doing it' gives a timing cue for when to call, and 'Only one Detour can be open' signals a precondition. However, it never states when NOT to use it (e.g., planned work should use start_task) or points at end_detour as the closing counterpart, both of which exist as siblings.

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