set_task_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states "WRITE," indicates mutation, says the tool adds or updates, and notes that it preserves the human-authored body. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether it merges or replaces existing intent, or any authorization or side-effect implications.

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 compact and front-loaded with the "WRITE" signal, a direct verb phrase, a concise inline enumeration, and valuable trailing context about portability and ATS compatibility. No filler is present.

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 9-parameter mutating tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives a helpful broad overview but does not fully explain update semantics, the meaning of the agent parameter, or return behavior. It is above minimal but leaves real gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps several listed intent concepts to likely parameters such as outcome, why, doneWhen, authority, constraints, and approvalRequired, but it does not explain agent, projectId, or taskId. This is useful but incomplete for a 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 identifies a clear verb and resource: it adds or updates portable execution intent in the task body, and enumerates the intent fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like set_task_lifecycle or update_task, but the scope is specific enough to be recognized.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for use, exclusions, or a preferred workflow, leaving the agent to infer context from the description alone.

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