task.end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that an outcome comparison is recorded, but says nothing about side effects, whether an active task is required, what happens if no task exists, or whether the end state is reversible — significant gaps for a state-mutating lifecycle terminator.

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?

A single compact line with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terse parenthetical is slightly compressed rather than fully readable prose.

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 and no annotations, the description must stand on its own for a 3-parameter mutation tool. It covers the essential intent but omits the role of task_id and the behavior when invoked outside an active task, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'outcome' is documented in the schema). The description partially compensates by explaining that 'ok' encodes success/failure and that a reason is captured, but the task_id parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource (end task) and clarifies the semantics as recording the actual result against the goal with success/failure/reason. It is understandable in isolation, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling lifecycle tools task.begin or task.note, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied by the 'end task' framing and the goal-vs-result comparison, which hints at when it should be called. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (must a task be active?) or when to use this versus task.note for recording intermediate observations.

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