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

Annotations already establish the non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent safety profile, and the description adds useful billing behavior: $0.01 per call and no charge on failure. It does not explain permissions, side effects on already-completed tasks, or return behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond 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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action before the cost note. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 tool, the description covers the core operation, the done:false reversal, and cost/failure behavior. It omits task_id semantics and any return/effect detail, but no output schema exists and the missing pieces are minor.

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 description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains the done boolean's two modes, including done:false to reopen, but it does not explain task_id's expected identity beyond the obvious implication of the task being acted on.

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 and resource: marking a checklist task done or reopening it with done:false. This clearly separates the action from a generic list/save task operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as hr_tasks or crm_complete_task.

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 two supported modes: complete with done:true/default and reopen with done:false. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus related siblings such as hr_tasks, hr_start_checklist, or crm_complete_task.

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