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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state destructively; the description adds the REST endpoint mapping, which is useful diagnostic context. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether an in-progress timer is stopped, whether the completion is reversible), so it adds only modest value beyond the annotation.

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 semantic action before the API detail. The endpoint sentence is marginally redundant but plausibly useful for a Reclaim-integration agent; nothing is bloated.

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 single-parameter mutation with an annotation covering destructiveness and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only material gap is side-effect behavior (timer interaction, reversibility) that an agent might want before invoking a destructive action.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The task id to mark complete'), so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Mark a task as done in the planner') and even names the underlying REST endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-identical sibling reclaim_mark_task_incomplete, which keeps it from 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reclaim_mark_task_incomplete, reclaim_stop_task, or reclaim_update_task, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the verb itself.

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