set_task_lifecycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'WRITE' and discloses an important behavior: archived, expired, future, and superseded tasks are excluded by context assembly. However, it does not say whether changes are reversible, how validFrom/validUntil interact with status, or what happens to existing lifecycle state.

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 very short and front-loads the mutation nature with 'WRITE.' Both sentences earn their place with meaningful behavioral information. It is concise but somewhat cryptic, especially the term 'portable lifecycle state.'

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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-description coverage. A single high-level sentence is insufficient for reliable invocation: it leaves uncertain how validFrom/validUntil should be formatted, what status is acceptable, and whether this should be preferred over update_task.

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 only broadly maps to status and validity windows, but does not explain date formats, required-status rules, the semantics of optional fields, or how 'agent' relates to the write operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('portable lifecycle state and validity windows'), which clearly distinguishes it from set_task_intent and set_task_hierarchy. It could be more concrete about exactly what 'portable lifecycle state' means, so it stops short of perfect clarity.

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 intended use is implied: call this when setting lifecycle state or validity windows. The description does not explicitly compare against update_task or set_task_intent, and it provides no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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