mark_task_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (mark as completed, add optional note) and input formats. However, it omits effects like idempotency, error handling for non-existent tasks, or side effects on related checklists.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides actionable usage details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and input formatting. It mentions 'active checklist,' linking to system state. Missing details on edge cases and sibling differentiation, but adequate overall.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds value with ID format examples ('1' or '#1') and efficiency guidance. This enriches the schema beyond literal descriptions.

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 action 'Mark a specific task as completed in the active checklist,' using a verb ('Mark as completed') and specifying the resource (task in active checklist). It distinguishes from sibling 'mark_tasks_done' by emphasizing a single task, and from 'unmark_task' by the action.

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 tips on referencing tasks (by ID or name) and optional notes, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'mark_tasks_done' or 'unmark_task'. It implies use for single-task completion but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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