complete-tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description itself adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, side effects, or relationship to other states, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 one sentence, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every part earns its place: the action, the resource, and the input basis.

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 single-parameter batch mutation tool backed by rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the core operation. It could mention the relationship to uncomplete-tasks or emphasize the destructive nature, but the annotations already supply the essential safety signal.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter, 'ids', including that it is an array of strings with minItems 1. The description repeats the concept of task IDs without adding extra meaning, constraints, or input-format details beyond the schema.

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 is specific: 'Complete one or more tasks by their IDs' clearly states the verb, resource, and required input. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like uncomplete-tasks and update-tasks by naming the exact task-completion action.

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 intended usage is implicitly clear: provide task IDs and mark those tasks as completed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, how it differs from update-tasks, or that tasks could later be reversed via uncomplete-tasks.

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