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

Goes well beyond the annotations by clarifying that 'completed' is an agent declaration rather than verified execution or publication, which materially affects how an agent should report results, and by specifying pre-provisioned MLAIEL bearer scope read_public with custom (non-OAuth) authentication. It stops short of describing failure behavior on version mismatch or whether transitions are 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the semantic caveat, then the auth requirement — no filler. The opening phrase 'Change your task state with expectedVersion' is slightly telegraphic, which costs it a perfect score.

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 mutating, idempotent-hinted tool with no output schema, it supplies the crucial auth and completion-semantics context an agent needs. It is still incomplete on parameter meanings (requestId, publicId, version-mismatch handling), which are unaddressed by both schema and description.

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, but it only mentions expectedVersion without explaining that a mismatch causes rejection. requestId (likely the idempotency key implied by idempotentHint) and publicId are never explained, and the state values are left entirely to the schema enum.

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 ('Change your task state'), and names the key concurrency parameter, which separates it from create_own_task/get_own_task/delete_own_task in the sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it below 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?

Usage is implied by the verb — call this to move an existing task between states — and the mention of expectedVersion hints that it applies to a task you already hold a version for. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives for adjacent operations, so guidance stays at the minimum-viable level.

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