complete_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'in one write', hinting at batched mutation, but does not mention side effects, version requirements, refusal behavior with expect, or failure semantics. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second covers multi-task addressing, and the third covers single-task addressing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 description covers the main addressing modes and references get_iteration, which is helpful. However, it omits what the required 'version' parameter should be, does not describe the expected guard/refusal behavior, and lacks any note about side effects. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall description is only minimally complete for a mutation tool with 8 parameters.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the addressing rules: indexes are preferred after get_iteration, and tasks also work; single tasks accept index or task. This helps agents choose between the many addressing parameters beyond what the schema lists individually.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Tick one or many tasks in one write.' This distinguishes complete_task from add/reopen/update/defer operations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to differentiate against, so it falls just 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?

The description gives concrete usage context: for multiple tasks, 'pass indexes (preferred after get_iteration) or tasks', and for exactly one, 'index or task still work'. This is clear guidance on addressing modes, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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