complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core status change but does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what happens when the task is already done, or how missing or invalid task IDs are handled.

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 four words, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word adds meaning and directly states the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return value details are not strictly required. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral guidance, the description is only minimally complete for helping an agent select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, task_id, is self-explanatory from its name and title, but schema_description_coverage is 0% and the description adds no additional meaning. It does not say where the ID comes from, what format it uses, or whether it must reference an existing open task.

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 specific verb and object ('Mark a task done') that clearly states the tool's purpose and result. It differentiates this tool from siblings like capture_task, drop_task, and list_open_tasks by focusing on the completion status change.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use complete_task versus alternatives such as drop_task or capture_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the task needing to already exist or be open, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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