taskwarrior_start

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

Annotations cover key traits (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds value by explaining the 'active' state effect. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors like error conditions, permissions needed, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., if starting an already active task). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose in the example section, but overall efficient with no redundant information.

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's moderate complexity (state change operation), annotations provide safety profile, and output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and example, though could improve on error handling or sibling tool context.

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%, but the description compensates by specifying the parameter as 'task_id to start' and providing an example. It adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal documentation, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID vs. numeric ID) or validation rules. Baseline adjusted upward due to compensation.

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 verb ('Start working on') and resource ('a task'), specifying that it adds the 'active' state to the task. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'taskwarrior_modify' or 'taskwarrior_annotate' which might also affect task states, missing full sibling distinction.

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?

It provides implied usage ('Use this tool to indicate you're actively working on a task'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'taskwarrior_modify' for state changes or 'taskwarrior_stop' for ending work. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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