Complete a task

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

The annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the operation is reversible, it does not cascade to subtasks, and completed tasks remain listed until cleared with specific flags. It also discloses return behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations because destructiveHint is consistent with mutating task state, and the description clarifies the scope and reversibility.

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 compact but information-dense. Every sentence contributes either a precise action, a contrast with a sibling, a non-obvious behavioral caveat, or the return contract. It is front-loaded with the core action and then branches into the most decision-relevant caveats.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ('updated task with status and completed'). It covers reversibility, cascade semantics, listing behavior after completion, and the correct usage boundaries versus siblings. For a two-parameter, fully-schema-documented tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 both parameters are already fully documented with provenance and the @default convention. The description does not need to repeat or add parameter detail; it simply relies on the schema, which is acceptable.

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 explicitly that the tool marks a task completed with status=completed and a stamped timestamp. It clearly differentiates itself from reopen_task and delete_task by describing what each sibling does differently. The behavior on parent tasks is also defined, which sharpens the purpose.

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?

Gives direct guidance on when to use it ('the right call for done') and when not to ('unlike delete_task', 'does NOT cascade to its subtasks'). It also names reopen_task as the undo path and tells the caller to complete subtasks individually when needed. This is explicit routing information.

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