taskops_plan

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

With no annotations, behavior is conveyed through the definition as a whole: atomic single-call creation, ordering semantics, review precedence ("the card's own value always wins"), collision behavior ("sibling conflicts in THESE paths union-merge... every other conflict still refuses"), and the identity trap ("without it the board hears the orchestrator"). The top-level description is terse, but the parameter descriptions carry the behavioral disclosure burden well; it does not describe what happens on dependency cycles or partial failure.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the core operation and scope are front-loaded, the critical dependency-index semantics follow, and the role restriction closes. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete: the schema descriptions explain goal, identity, review defaults, conflict-resolution rules on the seam files, and precedence. The missing pieces — return value/result of a successful call, failure mode for invalid indices or cycles, sync between the index semantics and the tree — are gaps, but not clarity-blocking ones.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, which is equally the baseline of 3. The top-level description's note on the index semantics mostly restates what the property cannot be transformed into, so it adds qualified value. The parameter descriptions themselves are exemplary (priority scale 0-3, precedence rules, example lists), but the tool description is not what provides that benefit.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "Write the tree in ONE call: a milestone and its cards, dependencies included." — making the batch-planning scope unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings through "ONE call" and "Orchestrator only", but it never names a sibling like taskops_card, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 definition implies when to use the tool — the whole milestone-and-cards tree at once, from the orchestrator only — and the schema adds strong guidance (repo_path warns about unreachable second projects, actor warns about identity confusion). But it never states explicit when-not conditions or directs the agent to a sibling (e.g., taskops_card for a single card), so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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