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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied externally. The description adds the concurrency requirement ('Version courante obligatoire') and the fact that a completion carries a result payload, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It says nothing about required permissions, whether cancel/reopen are reversible, or what happens to the result on cancel, so it does not go much beyond the annotation baseline.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the constraint and the alternative. No filler. The mixed French/English phrasing ('via son moteur') is terse to the point of slight ambiguity but costs no length.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the main lifecycle semantics and the concurrency requirement. It leaves open what a version mismatch returns, what happens to the task record on cancel, and how 'result' is stored, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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 parameter burden, and it only partially does: it clarifies that 'result' accompanies a completion and that 'version' must be the current one. The 'id' and 'action' parameters get no elaboration beyond what their names and the enum convey, and there is no guidance on result shape or version-mismatch behavior.

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 names a specific operation set on a specific resource: finishing a manual task with its result, cancelling, or reopening ('Terminer une tâche manuelle avec son résultat, annuler ou rouvrir'), which maps directly onto the action enum. It also carves out the manual-task scope, which separates it from the broader task family. The 'manual' qualifier is the only point an agent has to interpret.

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 gives a when-not rule plus an alternative: a task already in progress is completed via its engine or via complete_task, not here. That is real routing guidance, though it stops short of saying what to do when the state of a task is unknown or when cancel/reopen should be preferred over other lifecycle tools.

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