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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: without an idempotency key every call creates a new task, while repeating the key never yields a duplicate and returns aangemaakt: false. This is exactly the kind of nuance the idempotentHint=false annotation cannot convey. It says nothing about error cases or permissions, so not a 5.

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?

Dense but well-structured: creation semantics first, completion second, idempotency last. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical field lists make the opening sentence slightly heavy to parse.

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 dual-mode, 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two modes, the at-least-one-id rule, and the dedupe return signal. Return shape beyond aangemaakt and failure behavior remain undocumented, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint absent from the schema: at least one id is required, and onderwerp can be replaced by a bare taaksoort. That meaning is not encoded in the schema's empty required list.

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?

Names two concrete operations (create a task, complete a task) and the fields that drive each mode, so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling crm_open_taken, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the completion path (voltooi_id completes only that task) and gives clear retry guidance around idempotentie_sleutel. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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