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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it states a per-call cost and that failed calls are free. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, but the description could say more about side effects, permissions, or whether completion can be reversed.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded and the cost note immediately after. Every phrase earns its place and there is no unnecessary text.

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, the description covers the core action, status options, and cost. However, with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, it should say more about task_id and the result of completing a task.

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 mentions the status values 'done' and 'cancelled', but does not explain the required task_id parameter or clarify its role in identifying the task to complete.

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: 'Mark a task done (or cancelled).' It is clearly distinguishable from CRM siblings such as crm_create_task and crm_list_tasks, which handle creation and listing rather than completion.

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 operation itself implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not state when to use crm_create_task or crm_list_tasks instead, nor whether this should be used only for final task closure.

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