memory_task_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action. It does not explain side effects, persistence, idempotency, or what happens to the current task state after completion.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool and front-loads the main action.

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?

The phrase 'current task' is undefined, and the description does not explain how the task was selected or what completing it entails. Although an output schema exists, the behavioral and contextual gaps leave the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'result' parameter, but it merely calls it a 'result summary,' adding little beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify optionality, expected format, or whether an empty summary 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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Mark the current task as complete with a result summary.' It clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like memory_task_set or memory_task_get.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites such as how 'current task' is established. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and short description.

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