task_decide

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral details: it writes escalation.decision, decider, and decided_at, transitions the task to 'running', only affects escalating tasks, is idempotent, and logs the decider for audit. This is strong disclosure beyond the schema.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then packs in state constraints, side effects, idempotency, and audit behavior. Every clause carries useful information with minimal waste.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context: the exact state transition, preconditions, idempotency, and audit trail. An agent can correctly decide when to call this tool and what effect to expect.

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 67%, with 'choice' and 'decider' already described in the schema. The description adds the audit purpose of 'decider' and the state transition, but does not significantly enrich parameter semantics for task_id beyond what the schema implies.

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's action: issuing a decision for an escalating task, writing decision fields, and returning the task to 'running'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like task_escalate by focusing on resolving escalation rather than creating it.

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 explicitly limits usage to the escalating state and notes that already-decided tasks are rejected. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the state condition and idempotency rule provide clear guidance on when the tool applies and when it does not.

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