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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the summary is user-visible in RankParse and is length-capped. It does not, however, disclose whether the task must be in a particular state, whether completion is reversible, or what happens on repeat calls (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

One efficient sentence with no padding, front-loading the action and payload. It is slightly dense in that the user-visibility note is tacked on, but every clause carries information.

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 with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it does, what to put in the summary, and where the summary surfaces. It is incomplete on task-state prerequisites and the absence of a return description, though with no output schema that gap is minor.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the summary's content intent and mentions the 2000-character limit (duplicating the schema maxLength), but it adds nothing about task_id beyond the word 'queued task' — the '^tsk_' format and whether it must be an assigned task are left entirely to 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Mark a queued task done' with the payload described (a plain-text summary of findings and actions). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented sibling get_agent_tasks.

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?

Usage is implied by 'queued task' and the summary content ('what you found and what you did'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of preconditions (does the task need to be claimed/in-progress first?), and no routing against siblings like get_agent_tasks or log_activity.

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