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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds the completion outcome and the precondition that verification criteria must be satisfied, which is useful context. However, it does not explain failure behavior, what happens to evidence, or whether completion can be reversed.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It leads with the action and follows with the condition for use.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential action and precondition. It omits failure behavior and sibling guidance, which keeps it from being fully complete, but not enough to make it inadequate.

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 both required parameters are already documented in the schema. The description refers to verification criteria and implies evidence matters, but adds no format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a task as completed.' It also names the precondition of satisfying verification criteria, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as analyze_task or plan_task, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It provides clear context for use: only once verification criteria are satisfied. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it lacks the explicit alternative routing that would earn a 5.

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