start_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the side effects: the task leaves list_ready, the board card moves to In Progress, and the state is released when the task is closed or sent back to spec:replan. It does not cover idempotency or error cases, but the core behavioral contract is well explained.

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 two sentences and every clause adds value: it defines the action, places it in the workflow, and explains the resulting state transitions. The core action is front-loaded, and the self-clearing behavior is included without unnecessary detail.

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 existence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool, the description covers the essential context: what happens to the task, how it interacts with list_ready, and how it is released. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., task must currently be in list_ready), but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in the normal workflow.

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 three parameters (id, branch, project). The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Mark a task in progress' — and immediately clarifies it as the first action a worker takes. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the task leaves list_ready and later can be released via close_task or spec:replan, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is for.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is the first thing a worker does when picking up a task, and it removes the task from list_ready so it is not dispatched twice. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when not to use it, but the workflow positioning and state-change explanation provide strong practical guidance.

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