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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description earns credit by explaining why: it stamps completer identity and timestamp, and a recurring task spawns its next occurrence, so repeat calls are not neutral. It still doesn't address permissions or error behavior for an unknown/already-complete task.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the action, then the side effect, then the endpoint. Zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the relevant return-side effect (who/when stamp, next recurrence) for a single-parameter mutation. Missing only failure modes (nonexistent task, already completed) and required permissions.

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?

With a single task_id parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the UUID format and the endpoint path reinforces it. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 and resource ('mark a task complete') plus the exact endpoint POST /tasks/{id}/complete/, which cleanly separates it from siblings like cogmento_get_task, cogmento_list_tasks, and cogmento_update_record_field.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals this is a mutation and implicitly positions it against read siblings, but it never says when to prefer it over cogmento_update_record_field (e.g. setting a status field) or what preconditions exist. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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