aiworkhub_manager_task_supersede

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two traits beyond the schema: this is a manager-level write operation and audit history is preserved. It omits reversibility, required authority, and side effects on the superseded card's relationships.

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 compact sentence, correctly front-loaded with the MANAGER WRITE signal and the core action. It earns its words but is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally efficient.

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 write tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but prerequisites, the reason parameter, and the orphaned-card precondition are all left unexplained.

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% for two parameters. The description hints that task_id refers to an orphaned active card, but never explains the reason field or what a valid supersede target looks like, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ("supersede an orphaned active card") and the MANAGER WRITE prefix identifies the actor class. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling aiworkhub_task_supersede, forcing the agent to infer the difference.

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 word "orphaned" implies a precondition, but it is never defined and no alternatives (aiworkhub_task_supersede, aiworkhub_manager_task_archive) are named or contrasted. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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