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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it sets taskStatus=done and doneAt, appends the outcome to the body as an Outcome section, and notes a reminder that the rest of the graph is not updated. It doesn't mention permission requirements or irreversibility, but the added context is substantial.

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, front-loading the core action and following with precise side effects and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is changed, how the outcome is stored, and a behavioral reminder. It lacks error-case or return-value elaboration, but given the annotations and rich schema, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description mostly repeats the schema's explanation of `outcome` without adding new syntax, format, or constraints, and says nothing extra about `id`. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Mark done') and resource ('task'), and details the exact mutations performed. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like take_task or create_task, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear purpose: use when you want to complete a task. However, there are no explicit when/when-not conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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