task_defer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('defer') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the task status. For a tool that likely changes task state, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Indonesian. It's appropriately sized for a simple action, though it could be more specific. No wasted words, but could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and schema coverage.

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?

Given the tool likely mutates task state (deferring offers), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (though unspecified), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the action. It doesn't explain task_id, reason, or deferred_until, leaving parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 'Tunda delegation offer yang ditujukan ke agent ini' (Defer delegation offer addressed to this agent) states a verb ('tunda' = defer) and resource ('delegation offer'), but lacks specificity about what exactly is being deferred. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like task_accept or task_reject, which likely handle similar delegation offers differently.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_accept or task_reject. The description implies it's for deferring delegation offers, but doesn't specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context with sibling tools.

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