hearthsmith_tasks_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait—accepting an id prefix—but does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to already-done tasks, or any side effects. Core behavior is stated, but edge-case behavior is left unspecified.

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 two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the parameter nuance in the second sentence. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and any detail about ambiguous prefixes, repeated calls, or state-transition consequences. It is serviceable but not fully 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 schema only provides the parameter name 'Task Id' with no description. The tool description adds real meaning by explaining that the id can be a prefix, which is critical for correct invocation. Without this, the agent would likely assume an exact ID is required.

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 a precise verb-resource statement: 'Mark a task done.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as list, add, block, and snooze. The second sentence about id prefix adds a useful constraint without muddying the core purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like block or snooze. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate situation.

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