task_accept

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes task status and returns the updated manifest. It also implies a precondition (offer addressed to active agent). However, it doesn't mention failure cases or idempotency, but for a simple action this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences achieve high information density. The first delivers the core purpose, the second adds usage guidance and alternatives without any filler.

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 description covers purpose, usage, state change, and return value. The output schema exists, so details of the manifest are not required. It could mention error conditions, but the tool is simple and well-scoped.

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 tool description adds no information about the task_id parameter beyond what the input schema already provides via its own description. The schema covers the parameter adequately, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Accept a pending delegation offer addressed to the active agent.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming task_reject and task_defer.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use after reviewing an offer that this agent will perform.' It also gives clear alternatives and when to use them, making the decision process unambiguous.

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