task_defer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the optional reason and deferred_until hint are 'saved with the transition,' which reveals that the action persists metadata. It also clarifies that deferral is not a final refusal, adding meaningful context beyond the verb 'defer.' However, it does not describe side effects like whether the task becomes locked or if the sender is notified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place. It includes purpose, usage, semantics, and a sibling comparison without any 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?

The tool is relatively simple, with one required parameter and two optional hints. The description covers the core action, when to use it, and how it differs from rejection. It does not mention what happens after deferral (e.g., whether the task reappears later or if the offer expires), which is a minor gap, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 descriptions are in Indonesian and flagged as 0% coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It explicitly mentions the optional reason and ISO-8601 deferred_until hint and ties them to the transition. It does not explicitly describe task_id, but the meaning is obvious from context and the tool name. The description adds enough semantic value beyond the schema's field names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Defer a pending delegation offer addressed to the active agent.' It immediately clarifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling tool task_reject by explicitly naming it as the final-refusal alternative.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use when the agent may reconsider the work later.' It also explicitly points to an alternative: 'use task_reject for a final refusal.' This gives the agent both a positive condition and a contrast with a sibling tool, which is ideal guidance.

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