Control a Reasonix task

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the burden. It lists actions like cancel and close, implying state changes, but gives no detail on side effects, reversibility, or async behavior beyond 'asynchronously finalize'. This is minimal disclosure but not absent.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the usage constraint and lists all supported actions without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the output schema and 80% parameter coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values or every parameter. It covers the key conceptual model and action list, though it could add a note about action-specific parameter requirements. The schema already handles those details.

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 coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic mapping for the action enum values ('resolve an interaction' → respond, 'asynchronously finalize' → finalize), which clarifies the otherwise unannotated enum. This is modest added value beyond the schema.

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 states it controls an existing Reasonix task and enumerates five concrete actions: steer, resolve an interaction, cancel, asynchronously finalize, or close it. The 'Use only for' constraint ties it to tasks created by reasonix_delegate, distinguishing it from creation and inspection siblings. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 provides explicit scoping: 'Use only for a Reasonix task created by reasonix_delegate.' This tells the agent when the tool applies and implicitly excludes tasks from other sources. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions beyond the creation source.

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