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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it explains the action is safe to run silently because it 'reaches no client' and is reversible ('one edit in SuiteDash reopens the task'), and it flags the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). This complements the destructiveHint=false annotation with a reversibility rationale.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, but the first two sentences are redundant – 'Mark a task as Completed' and 'Marks one task as Completed' repeat the same fact. The auth and reversibility notes earn their place; the repetition does not.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with safety annotations, the description covers reversibility, absence of client-facing effects, and authentication needs. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though it lacks return-value context (no output schema exists).

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?

Only one parameter (task_id) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting it as 'Task ID from list_tasks.' The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Mark a task as Completed') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like suitedash_add_task and suitedash_list_tasks. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives it differs from.

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?

Provides context on confirmation behavior ('runs without asking') but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. Usage is implied rather than spelled out – adequate but with a clear gap.

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