amend_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does this well by disclosing that done tasks are refused and that scope changes are strictly additive. It doesn't cover every edge case like error responses or auth requirements, but the most important behavioral guardrail is clearly stated.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the primary function, and the second states a hard constraint plus the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place, and no information is buried or repeated.

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 covers the operation, the failure condition, the add-only restriction, and the relevant sibling alternative. Since an output schema exists and all parameters are documented, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, and schema descriptions already explain each parameter, including that scope is added, project is opaque, and branch use is backend-decided. The description reinforces the add-only scope semantics, but it adds little beyond what the schema already 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 names the specific action ('Widen an open task's scope and/or set its brief') and the resource ('task'), and immediately distinguishes itself from edit_task. The add-only constraint further clarifies the tool's precise role, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance (widen scope, set brief), explicit when-not-to-use guidance (refuses done tasks), and names the alternative edit_task for narrowing/removing fields/setting labels. This leaves little inference to the agent.

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