contacts_update_task_completed

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens when completed is set to false), permissions, or the exact scope of the update. Since annotations are present, the burden is lower, but the description still contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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 under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence that adds no information is not efficient; it is a placeholder. There is no front-loading of critical scoping or usage context.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential operational context. An agent cannot infer the meaning of the 'completed' flag, the relationship between contactId and taskId, or the expected behavior of the operation. The description is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 67% description coverage (taskId and contactId have 'Task Id' and 'Contact Id' labels, but no format or relationship info). The description adds no parameter meaning, failing to clarify the role of 'completed' (e.g., accepted values, effects) or how taskId relates to contactId. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations.

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 'Update Task Completed' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name. It provides no specificity about what 'update' means in this context or what 'task completed' refers to, and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'contacts_update_task'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contacts_update_task' or 'contacts_create_task'. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context on selection.

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