Start Task Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does explain key side effects: the task is set in progress for the person, linked to this session, and its time counts on the task. It also notes project/session switching implications, though it does not cover permissions, error cases, or whether taking over another person's task requires explicit consent beyond the schema's take parameter.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses the id/no-id distinction early. It is dense and slightly run-on in the first sentence, but every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior; it does so by saying the no-id path returns open tasks to choose from and the id path returns the task with full context. It lacks error and permission detail, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning beyond the schema: id omission changes the tool into a chooser, session takes precedence over repo project, and session_project switching should happen only after asking the person.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start working on a task from this session,' and explicitly distinguishes the two modes by id presence. It also names the sibling alternative read_task, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus adjacent tools.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: omit id to choose from open tasks, provide id to start the task, and use read_task instead if the person only wants to read without taking the task. The 'Follow next_steps' instruction also directs post-call behavior.

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