Complete Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: marking done, optional notes, memory storage, unblocking tasks, conflict responses, and deprecated force parameter. It lacks details on idempotency (completing an already done task) and permissions, but covers the main actions well.

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 (4-5 sentences) and front-loads the primary action. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. The structure is logical: main action, optional features, special behaviors, and conflict handling.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions that unblocked_tasks is returned conditionally. It covers the main use cases and conflict resolution thoroughly. Missing details like the exact response format for a successful completion or error messages, but overall adequate for selection and invocation.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the 'conflict' response context, clarifies the interaction between force and resolution, and advises AI agents to always provide completion_note. This enriches understanding of parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mark a task as done.' It includes optional actions like logging a note and storing as memory. The sibling list includes update_task and remove_task, and the description distinguishes itself by focusing on completion-specific behavior such as conflict handling and unblocking tasks.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (to complete a task) and how to handle conflicts ('if the task is blocked...') with options like force=true or resolution parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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