teamstorm_set_task_description

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

The description says 'Replace the complete description,' which is inherently destructive (overwrites existing content), but annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction, misleading the agent about the tool's destructive nature. While the description adds useful guidance (plain text inputs, never invent completed work), the contradiction is severe and warrants a score of 1.

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 relatively concise, with three sentences, and front-loads the core purpose and template structure. It includes a key usage condition and a behavioral warning. There is minor redundancy, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

While purpose and usage are clear, the tool lacks parameter explanations and has a contradiction with annotations. For a write operation with three parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete: an agent would not know what to pass for task_summary and work_done, nor how they map to the HTML template. The contradiction further reduces completeness.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (task_key, task_summary, work_done). It only mentions that inputs must be plain text, but doesn't define what each parameter represents or how they map to the HTML template. The agent is left to infer meaning solely from parameter names, which is inadequate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the complete description of an existing TeamStorm task' and specifies the exact canonical HTML template contents ('Суть задачи', an <hr> separator, 'Что было сделано'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like teamstorm_update_task, which likely updates other fields.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this tool only when the user explicitly requested updating the task description.' This provides a clear when-to-use condition and implicitly when not to use it, though it doesn't name alternatives. The guidance is strong enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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