task_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that archive is 'Permanently archive instead of pausing' and that expected_revision 'rejects stale updates,' which are useful behavioral traits. Yet it does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility of pause, or what 'stop tracking' entails beyond the basic pause/archive distinction.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, trigger phrases, and an Args list. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague content.

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?

The description explains all four parameters and the core behavior, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor gaps remain, such as the exact state transition when pausing vs archiving, but the overall context is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description compensates fully for the 0% schema coverage by explaining every parameter in the Args section, including the purpose of expected_revision ('Revision returned by task_load; rejects stale updates'). This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop tracking a task by pausing or archiving it.' It also provides concrete trigger phrases, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like task_resume, task_save, and task_init.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Call this when the user says "stop tracking", "不用追踪了", or wants to archive/finish a task.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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