done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real mutation semantics: id, name and manual tags survive, only status moves, and `history` records the transition. It stops short of stating whether the change is reversible or whether any permission applies, which for a no-annotation mutation tool is a remaining 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the observable effect of the call and then the sibling routing and accepted input forms. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully explains the mutation's effects, the identifier formats, and where the change is recorded. It leaves the `initiative` parameter and any return behavior unexplained, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is only 50%. The description reinforces the `name` parameter by stating it accepts a task name or UUIDv7 id, which adds meaning. However, the `initiative` parameter (with default null) is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Mark a task done' names both the action and the object, and the follow-up sentence distinguishes it from `set_status` ('the shortcut for the terminal one'). An agent can identify what it does and how it differs from the sibling that does essentially the same job.

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?

Explicit routing: 'For any other column of the initiative's board use `set_status`' tells the agent exactly when to pick the alternative, and implicitly when not to use this one. Also clarifies the acceptable identifier forms (task name or UUIDv7 id) so the agent doesn't need to guess about resolution.

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