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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the destination (done column) and the return value (updated board). It does not address repeat invocation, which matters given idempotentHint=false, or any permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded, then the effect, then the disambiguation rule. Nothing is redundant and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema means return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the mutation/destructive profile, so the description only needs trigger and effect – both present. The remaining hole is the undocumented 'board' parameter, which leaves an agent unsure how to scope the operation.

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 50%: 'title' is documented in the schema (matched by title), while 'board' has no description anywhere. The description weakly implies the board context ("the board's done column") but never explains which board is used, whether it is required, or how it defaults when omitted. Partial compensation only.

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 the specific verb and resource (complete a task), names the target state (the board's done column), and describes the return value (the updated board). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like move_task, add_task, and list_tasks without opening any 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?

Explicit trigger condition ("when the user says a specific task is done and names it") plus an explicit when-not rule ("if several tasks match or none is named, ask which one first"). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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