drop_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the mutation ('Mark a task dropped') and the return value ('Returns the updated task detail'), but it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what 'dropped' means relative to other states, or any side effects such as cascading to subtasks. This is acceptable for a simple state-change tool but not thorough.

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 short sentences, zero wasted words, and the action is stated first with the return value second. The entire definition is scannable and directly on point for a single-parameter tool.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it names the action, the target, the identifying property, and the return value. The only missing context is usage criteria relative to alternate state-changing siblings, but for a simple operation this is adequate.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of 'id' as 'The task's id.primaryKey'. The description's phrase 'stable ID' adds minimal semantic enrichment by implying the ID is persistent, but it does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already communicates. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark'), a specific resource ('a task'), and a distinct outcome ('dropped') that differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_task and complete_task. The phrase 'by its stable ID' also clarifies the exact input mechanism.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to mark a task dropped) but provides no guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention how this relates to delete_task, complete_task, or other task state changes, leaving the agent to infer the decision criteria.

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