complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete mutation: completed_at is set to now. However, it says nothing about behavior when the task is already completed (no-op vs. error), required permissions, or what is returned.

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 short sentences with the action and its effect front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the one parameter note. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 simple single-parameter mutation, the core action and effect are covered adequately. Missing are the id's provenance, already-completed behavior, and failure modes, which matter because there are no annotations or output schema to fill those gaps.

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 0%, so the single parameter is undocumented structurally; the description compensates only partially by stating the id is numeric, which the schema already implies via type integer. It does not say where to obtain the id (e.g., from list_tasks) or that it must reference an existing task.

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?

"Mark a chore completed" states a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the exact state change. It does not explicitly name the sibling inverse 'uncomplete_task', so the agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than 'uncomplete_task' or 'delete_task', nor any precondition such as whether the task must currently be open. "Use the numeric task id" is a parameter hint, not usage guidance.

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