task_defer_smart

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses side effects: it writes the resolved deferDate via task_update, triggers a sync, and supports idempotency, concurrency control, and dry_run. It also returns resolvedDeferDate and reason. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a write operation or detail all possible error states, but it is fairly transparent.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then systematically covers variants, environment variables, exclusions, return values, side effects, safety features, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return object (taskId, resolvedDeferDate, reason). It covers side effects (writes, sync), safety (dry_run, idempotency, expectedModifiedAt), and provides an example. The sibling tools list includes task_update and batch variants, which are adequately addressed by the 'when not to use' note.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, but the tool description adds value by explaining the high-level intent concept for the 'intent' parameter, listing all variants, and noting environment variables for defaults. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 that the tool defers a task to a date computed from a high-level intent, with specific verb 'Defer' and resource 'task'. It distinguishes from unconditional ISO-date defers by explicitly saying to use task_update instead, and lists multiple variants, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for smart defer based on intent) and when not to (for unconditional ISO-date defers, prefer task_update). It enumerates intent variants and gives an example, offering clear context and alternatives.

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