tasks_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('append') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation (likely yes, given 'append'), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., if it modifies task status or just logs), rate limits, or response format. It lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is minimally complete but lacks detail on mutation behavior, parameter meanings, and usage context. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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 description must compensate but adds no parameter semantics. It mentions 'task id' and 'state' implicitly but doesn't explain their roles, formats, or constraints (e.g., valid state values, what project_root does). With 3 parameters and low coverage, this 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 'Append a state transition record for a task id' specifies the action (append) and resource (state transition record for a task), but it's vague about what 'append' means operationally (e.g., adds to a log vs. updates a field) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like tasks_upsert or tasks_list. It avoids tautology by not restating the name/title.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tasks_upsert (which might update task states) or tasks_list (for viewing states). The description implies usage for recording state changes but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers.

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