Begin a quality-gated task

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it records specific items, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions, but does not elaborate on validation or side effects—acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

One short sentence (12 words) that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning; no padding or 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description fails to explain many parameters (e.g., taskId, nonGoals) that are critical for correct usage. The tool's context (task initialization) is conveyed, but parameter completeness is lacking.

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 should compensate. It only explains objective, acceptanceCriteria, and workspaceRoot, leaving 6 of 9 parameters (taskId, nonGoals, assumptions, constraints, allowedPaths, protectedPaths) unexplained. Insufficient for agents to understand required inputs like taskId.

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 the tool records objective, acceptance criteria, and workspace before repository work begins, using a specific verb ('record') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'final_gate' (end-of-task) and 'inspect_repository' (different action).

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 specifies 'before repository work begins,' indicating when to use. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the sibling context implies this is the initial step, and 'final_gate' is the counterpart. Missing explicit exclusions or alternatives, but still clear.

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