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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the toggling action and reversibility ('put it back'), but does not mention auth requirements, side effects, validation behavior, or consequences of setting done=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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core behavior efficiently and is easy to parse at a glance.

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?

A simple toggle tool with an output schema, so return details are not necessary. However, the description omits that npub is required for authentication and gives no usage contrast with task_save, leaving an agent with modest ambiguity for a mutating 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?

The schema already documents 3 of 4 parameters meaningfully (75% coverage), and the description adds only the false-side meaning of 'done' via 'put it back'. It does not clarify the npub field's contradictory 'Required' text while npub is not in the required array.

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 'Mark one task done, or put it back' clearly names the action (mark done/un-done) and the resource (a task), and it implies a toggle rather than a general update. It distinguishes itself from task_delete and task_list, though it does not explicitly contrast with task_save.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings like task_save or task_delete. It communicates the basic operation but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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