タスクを完了にする

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior (setting true/false toggles completion) but says nothing about side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the task record beyond the completed field. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the toggling nuance. No waste words, appropriately concise for a simple tool. It loses a point for not having any structured breakdown or bullet points that could aid readability, but it's still highly concise.

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 but has no output schema, no annotations, and a brief description. Missing context includes what happens when the task doesn't exist, whether the operation is idempotent, and whether any additional effects occur (e.g., timestamps, notifications). An agent has enough to make a basic call but not to handle edge cases or understand the full outcome.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented with descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds only a redundant explanation of the 'completed' parameter's behavior, already present in the schema. Since the schema carries the full parameter meaning, a baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'make task complete', and clarifies that setting completed to false reverts it. This clearly distinguishes it from other task operations like update-task, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-task or clear-completed-tasks. The behavior is implied (toggle completion), but there is no explicit 'use this when you only need to change completion status' or 'for other task fields use update-task'. The agent must infer the usage context.

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