Rename a task an agent filed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the important restriction that person-authored tasks cannot be renamed, but it does not describe permissions, failure behavior, idempotency, or what the operation returns.

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 two short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded and the important scope restriction follows immediately.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the critical restriction on agent-filed versus person-authored tasks. It is nearly complete, though it could add a brief note about error behavior or prerequisites.

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%, so both parameters are already documented as the task id and the new title. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action as giving a task a new title and the target as a task an agent filed. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool such as reword_step or reword_note as an alternative.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: only tasks filed by an agent can be renamed, while tasks written by a person keep their title regardless of whether they are opened to agents. It does not state alternatives for renaming steps or notes, but the key when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule is explicit.

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