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 of disclosing behavioral traits. The description simply states the action without mentioning side effects, error handling, idempotency, or permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency—it does not reveal whether the operation is reversible or what happens if the task ID is invalid.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has a simple one-parameter schema and an output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, since there are no annotations, the description would benefit from adding behavioral details like idempotency or error conditions. It remains minimally viable but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions '指定 id' referencing the task_id parameter, but does not add any meaning beyond the schema's field name and type. No constraints, default behavior, or error conditions are described for the parameter.

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 '把指定 id 的任务标记为完成' clearly states the action (mark complete) on a specific resource (task identified by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools add_task and delete_task by specifying the completion operation.

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 context for when to use the tool: when you want to mark a task as complete. It does not explicitly mention comparisons or exclusions with sibling tools, but the action is unambiguous. No alternative guidance is given, but the usage scenario is directly implied.

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