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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description earns credit by explaining exactly where that destruction lands: with id, "result replaces its text and links are added," i.e. only the result text is overwritten and links are appended. It also notes a review receipt is returned, though it does not describe the approval/auth flow beyond the initial 'no approval' note.

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 dense sentences front-load the primary case and then the id variant, with zero filler. The phrasing is compressed to the point of being slightly cryptic ("a new task born Done"), but nothing is wasted.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and safety by annotations, so the main misses are parameter-level: the mandatory one-sentence why for workspace writes and the purpose of body, kind and audience are never echoed in the description. With 10 parameters and no required fields, an agent still has gaps before calling.

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 60%, and the description compensates by grouping parameters into two disjoint modes: a title plus workspaceId-or-parentId for creation, versus id plus result and links for the update path. It still leaves why, body, kind and audience unaddressed, so it does not fully close the gap.

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 names two precise operations: creating a task that is born Done (title plus workspaceId or parentId) and appending a later result to an existing Done task by id. This is clearly a write-side reporter rather than task_create/task_complete, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Report work you already did that needed no approval" gives a concrete trigger condition, implicitly excluding the propose/approve path. It does not name the alternative tools (task_propose, task_create) an agent should reach for when approval is needed.

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