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

The idempotentHint annotation already covers repeated-call behavior, and the description adds little beyond the obvious state transition. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, permissions, or effects on related data, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the full action with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every word 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 state-transition tool with one documented parameter and an idempotency annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. It could briefly mention that the task must already exist, but the combination of schema, title, and description gives an agent enough to invoke it 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?

The input schema documents the single id parameter at 100% coverage, including its UUID format and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Zet') with a clear resource ('taak') and target state ('afgerond'), so the action is immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling update_task, which could also alter a task, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use complete_task versus update_task or create_task, and no mention of when not to use it. The only usage signal is the implied purpose of marking a task completed.

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