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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: completing a step returns information about the next step, which shapes the agent's follow-up action. However, it does not say whether completion is irreversible, what happens if the task is already complete or blocked, or what errors to expect.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the action before the follow-on effect. Every clause carries information.

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 description covers the core action and hints at the response. But "with a summary" implies summary is expected, while the schema marks only task_id as required — leaving ambiguity about whether summary is mandatory — and preconditions for completion go unstated.

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 100%, so both task_id and summary are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's "with a summary of what you did" merely echoes the schema's "What was done" and adds no format, length, or expected-content guidance beyond it.

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 task or step done." That distinguishes it from taskhold_start (begin work) and taskhold_add_note (annotate), though it doesn't explicitly address taskhold_progress or taskhold_update, which an agent might confuse with 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?

Usage is implied by "Mark a task or step done" — call it when work is finished. But there is no guidance on what to use instead for partial progress (taskhold_progress), interruptions (taskhold_block), or logging without completing (taskhold_add_note), and no stated preconditions such as whether the task must be started first.

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