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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only mutation with openWorldHint=true, and the description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the cross-system side effect: ClickUp-linked tasks are also updated in ClickUp. It stops short of describing idempotency, failure behavior on missing tasks, or what is returned, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the inverse-mode and side-effect caveats. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent still cannot tell what the call returns, how errors surface for an invalid task_id, or whether the ClickUp propagation can fail independently. These gaps matter more because annotations mark it openWorldHint.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, task_id is undocumented anywhere — the description does not say whether it expects an internal ID, a ClickUp ID, or a name. The done parameter's meaning in the description merely restates the schema's own "false reopens the task (default true)" note, adding no format or edge-case detail.

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 and resource ("Mark a Goptin task done") plus the inverse operation ("reopen it with done=false"). No sibling in the list does task completion, so an agent can distinguish it from create_task or list_tasks without inspecting the schema.

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 description makes the when-to-use condition implied by the verb clear (finish or reopen a task) and documents the reopen path. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives — nothing about what to do for ClickUp-only tasks, unknown task IDs, or whether reopening resets any state.

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