complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important side effect ("Auto-notifies the delegator"), which is real added value, but it omits permissions/auth requirements, idempotency (what happens if called twice), and error behavior for tasks not in an accepted state.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the side effect is appended, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the definition leaves too much unspecified — notably identifier semantics, filesChanged, and failure/edge-case behavior.

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 explains result, commitSha, prUrl, and success (including the default-true semantics implied by "success or failure"), covering the most ambiguous fields, but it says nothing about the required taskId/agentId or filesChanged, leaving three parameters undocumented everywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Finish an accepted task") plus the outcome semantics (success or failure) and the artifacts carried back (result, commit sha, PR url). It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling complete_claim, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"an accepted task" implies the precondition that the task was previously claimed/accepted, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when not to use it or names complete_claim as the alternative, so the usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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