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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which is the key safety signal for a state-mutating tool. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it doesn't disclose whether completion dates, checklists, or activity entries are affected, what happens if the task isn't completed, or whether the action is reversible.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the target. It is lean, though leaner than the tool's semantics warrant.

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 mutation tool with an undocumented required parameter, no output schema, and side effects implied by destructiveHint=true, the description should explain the resulting task state and any preconditions. It covers only the bare state flip.

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 0%, so the sole parameter cardId is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description offers no meaning, format, or example for it, leaving the agent to guess what identifier is expected.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+state transition: a 'completed task' becomes 'not done again'. The mention of 'completed' implicitly distinguishes it from its inverse sibling complete_task, but it never names that sibling or any constraint.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the task must currently be completed), and no reference to the obvious alternative complete_task. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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