Finish a task

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context that elapsed time is measured automatically, but it omits whether completion is idempotent, whether re-completing a finished task overwrites the prior result, or whether authorization constraints apply.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and every sentence adds useful information: the done/failed distinction and automatic elapsed-time measurement.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core outcome semantics and an automatic timing behavior. It remains incomplete about task_group, repeat completion behavior, and any side effects, so it is adequate but not fully sufficient.

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 75%, so the schema already documents result semantics, status enum and default, and task_id format. The description adds only a small amount by restating that 'result' holds the result or failure reason depending on status; the undocumented task_group parameter is not explained in either place.

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 ('Record the outcome of a task') and clarifies the two terminal modes (done with result, failed with reason). It is clearly a write operation, distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_task_status, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when a task finishes or fails, supplying its outcome. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, whether it can be called multiple times for the same task, or how it relates to siblings such as get_task_status or clear_tasks.

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