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

Annotations already cover destructiveness, idempotency, and read-only status. The description adds valuable context: error behaviors ('refuses with TASK_TAKEN... nothing is written'), cross-references to task_get, and requirements for 'why' on workspace items.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each sentence carries useful information, though the mention of approvedText (not a parameter) could be omitted for tighter focus.

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?

Covers usage conditions, failure modes, and requirements for 'why' and 'links'. Output schema exists for return values, and annotations cover safety profile. The description is nearly complete, missing only explicit alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning to 'result' (examples like '4 likes') and 'links' (artifacts or URLs; task_get reads them back). However, it mentions 'approvedText', which is not a parameter in the schema, potentially causing confusion.

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 'Complete' and resource 'task', with clear scope ('free or yours, from To do as well as Doing'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like task_cancel, but the scope constraints provide useful distinction.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use (task is free or yours, in To do or Doing) and failure conditions (TASK_TAKEN, TASK_IN_REVIEW). It doesn't name alternative tools like task_cancel, but the usage is well-implied.

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