task_reassign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It explains token revocation, handoff generation, stale-attempt rejection, clearing of claimant, and how a new owner clears handoff state. It also discloses the terminal-task refusal behavior, which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs to predict.

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 long and dense but front-loads the core action and follows with necessary technical detail. Every sentence contributes semantic value; the '≈dsh handoffId' and token-window jargon add precision but also complexity, so it is not maximally concise.

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?

The tool has a complex state-machine behavior, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers transitions, side effects, rejection mechanics, takeover flow, usage context, and terminal refusal. The main gap is that it does not state what the caller sees on success or on terminal refusal (return value/error), which would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema describes 'note' but not 'task_id', and schema description coverage is 50%. The description's prose implies the task being released but adds no explicit parameter-level guidance about task_id or how to use note; the note's audit purpose is already in the schema. The behavioral detail (must be pending/running, terminal refused) indirectly constrains valid values, so it is minimally adequate but not compensatory.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: 'Release a pending OR running task back to unclaimed' and clearly describes the state transition (running→pending). It is distinct from sibling task tools because it focuses on handing off ownership for takeover, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate itself from task_supersede/task_escalate/task_claim.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use when the current implementer is stuck/lost/gave up and you want an uncontested take-over.' It also gives an important exclusion: 'Terminal tasks refuse (can't resurrect).' However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use this versus those.

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