complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the mutation ('Mark as completed') but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior on invalid IDs, or prerequisites. Minimal but not misleading, so a low-average score is appropriate.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that immediately conveys purpose and key parameter usage. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action. It omits details like required existence of the task or error handling, but given the simplicity and clear sibling context, it is reasonably 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?

The description clarifies that 'task_id' is an ID and also an index, giving practical meaning beyond the integer type. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates sufficiently for the single parameter, though it could add more on valid ranges or required existence.

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?

Specific verb 'Mark' + resource 'task' + action 'completed' clearly states the tool's function. The parenthetical 'using its ID (index)' adds the key parameter context. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like delete_task and add_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?

The description clearly implies that the tool requires an existing task ID, which establishes when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the sibling names make the distinctions obvious.

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