aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_convert_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the mutation (creates the task card in the task store), the state transition (NeedFix item to task_created), the confirmation gate (confirm=True plus matching plan_digest), and the non-effect ('never spawns a worker process'). It does not cover failure behavior on digest mismatch or whether the conversion is reversible, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 write-nature and the core action are front-loaded in the lead sentence, followed by the two routing constraints. Two dense sentences with no filler or restated title.

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 explained, and the description covers the prerequisite, the side effects, and the worker-free guarantee an agent needs before mutating state. Missing only edge-case information such as recovery from a stale or mismatched plan_digest.

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 confirm, needfix_id, plan_digest and task_plan are already documented in structured form; the description largely restates confirm=True and the plan_digest requirement. The only real addition is the 'matching' digest constraint implying runtime validation, which is marginal at this coverage level, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('convert an accepted NeedFix item into a canonical task card') plus the key scope limit ('without launching a worker'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from both siblings, aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_convert_preview and aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_link_existing_task.

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?

Gives explicit ordering ('Call ...convert_preview first to obtain the required plan_digest') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ('use ...link_existing_task instead when a finished accepted task already resolves the item'). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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