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 It discloses the status transition ('Transitions any non-terminal status→superseded') and the recorded fields (superseded_by and reason). It doesn't disclose validation behavior (e.g., if superseded_by references a non-existent task) or idempotency, but the core behavioral facts are present.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows logically. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple mutation with no output schema, the description covers the intent, effect, and alternatives. It doesn't mention edge cases like behavior when the task is already terminal (though 'non-terminal' implies it) or permission requirements, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions superseded_by and reason, providing meaning beyond raw parameter names. task_id is self-evident. It adds value by explaining the role of superseded_by as the replacing task's ID, though it could be more explicit about each parameter's format.

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The description clearly states the action (mark a task superseded) and the resource (task), with a specific effect (status transition to superseded) and recorded fields. It explicitly contrasts with completed/failed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_complete and task_fail.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of completed/failed when a task didn't finish but was overtaken', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, along with named alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity for an agent.

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