task_complete

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a write operation. The description adds that only the claiming agent can complete it and that the optional body is recorded as a comment. No contradiction with annotations, and the idempotent nature is implied.

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 concise with two sentences for purpose and usage, followed by clear parameter definitions. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (two parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics and main behavior. It does not need to detail return values.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains that task_id is 'ID of a task you have claimed' and body is 'Optional note recorded on the task's comment log'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's field titles.

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 uses specific verb 'mark... as completed' and resource 'claimed task', distinctly indicating the action. It explicitly states the tool's scope: only the agent that claimed the task can complete it, differentiating it from sibling tools like task_claim, task_fail, and task_unclaim.

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?

The description clearly states when to use: when an agent has claimed a task and wants to mark it completed. It implies the prerequisite of having claimed the task, but does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternative tools for different circumstances.

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