fusion_act_on_task

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining there is no replay guard, that a second attempt fails naturally because the task is no longer ASSIGNED, and that pod state is the duplicate protection. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure for a destructive, non-idempotent action.

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 dense but efficient. The warning is front-loaded, the replay-guard explanation is relevant, and the Args section is compact without filler. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the decision action, dynamic outcome validation, failure behavior, duplicate protection, and all parameter semantics. Nothing essential for correctly invoking the tool is missing.

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 carries full responsibility for parameters. It explains each argument: number, outcome with the critical dynamic-value warning, optional comment, and the safety guard on confirmed. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: approving, rejecting, or otherwise deciding a task. The emphatic 'THIS DECIDES SOMETHING' and the annotation title 'Submit a decision on a worklist task' make the mutation intent unmistakable and distinct from read-oriented siblings like fusion_task_detail or fusion_list_tasks.

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 gives strong procedural guidance: outcome must come from fusion_task_detail, values differ per task/user, and APPROVE should never be assumed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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