aiworkhub_dashboard_task_quarantine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that confirm=True and a matching preview_digest are required, that the operation is reversible and undoable via quarantine_restore, and enumerates side effects (records retired outcomes in the roadmap store, moves task and event rows into task_retention_batches, invalidates storage telemetry). This is unusually complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its scope, then prerequisite, then alternatives, then side effects — a logical order. The final sentence packs four distinct effects into one long clause chain, which strains readability slightly, but no sentence is filler.

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 destructive-but-reversible mutation with no annotations and an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers prerequisites, safety requirements, reversibility path, downstream side effects, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics not in the schema: older_than_days must match the cutoff used in the preview call, and confirm/preview_digest are jointly required. It does not restate the 7..3650 range or digest format, but the coupling constraint is the more valuable addition.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'move aged archived task rows matching a current preview into a reversible retention batch'. The 'USER WRITE' prefix and the qualifier 'reversible' immediately distinguish it from read-only sibling tools such as aiworkhub_dashboard_task_retention_preview.

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 states an explicit precondition — call aiworkhub_dashboard_task_retention_preview first with the same older_than_days cutoff to obtain preview_digest — and names the alternatives for the adjacent cases: quarantine_restore to undo a batch, task_archive to archive one live task. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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