cockpit_toggle_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that a task is marked completed or pending; it omits whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, what happens when 'completed' is omitted, and whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input schema has 0% description coverage and no annotations. The description leaves key details unstated, including the required task_id, the default behavior of completed, and any prerequisite or side-effect 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives only an indirect hint that a completed/pending state exists, but it never mentions 'task_id', never explains its role, and never clarifies that the 'completed' boolean defaults to true or what omitting it does.

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 specific verb ('Marks') and resource ('a task as completed or pending in the project checklist'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like cockpit_add_task and cockpit_get_ready_tasks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from all sibling tools or clarify the 'toggle' naming versus the explicit completed/pending states.

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 by saying it marks tasks in the project checklist, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over cockpit_add_task or other status-related siblings.

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