complete_ai_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the key side effect (auto-move to Review), a default status, and a prerequisite call order. It doesn't describe FAILED-status behavior or reversibility, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Multiple short sentences deliver the core action, side effect, ordering prerequisite, language requirement, and default status with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 mutation-focused tool with no output schema, this description plus fully covered schema gives an agent the necessary recipe: call after add_comment, provide an English message, and let status default. Minor gaps remain around FAILED behavior and when to prefer batch_complete_tasks, but they don't block correct use.

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 input schema documents all eight parameters, so the description only needs to add marginal value. It adds an English-language constraint for message and echoes the COMPLETED default, but otherwise relies on 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 says the tool reports AI work results and auto-moves the task to the Review column, giving a clear action and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from move_task or batch_complete_tasks, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call AFTER add_comment', which gives sequencing relative to a sibling, and states that the message must be in English. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative batch tools, but the main usage context is clear.

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