mark_task_completed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the activation of dependent tasks, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., idempotency, error handling, or whether the action is reversible). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. While it lacks structure like bullet points, every word is necessary to convey the core action. It is appropriately sized but could benefit from additional detail.

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?

Given the presence of 23 sibling tools, two parameters (one optional nested object), and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits context about the 'final_output' parameter, return values, and when to choose this tool over others.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters. 'task_id' is implied but not clarified, and 'final_output' (a nested object) is completely undocumented. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'mark' and the resource 'task completed', and specifies the effect 'activate dependent tasks'. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'mark_task_failed' or 'mark_task_blocked_human' by indicating a positive completion 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'submit_my_output' or 'mark_task_failed'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must be running) or when not to use it.

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