complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the mutation (sets status to completed) but does not discuss permissions, reversibility, side effects on notes, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutating tool without annotation support.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. Each word contributes; 'convenience method' adds a bit of flavor but doesn't distract. Excellent for size.

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 mutation, the description covers the core action, but lacks context about when to use it (given siblings), required prerequisites, or behavioral caveats. The presence of 'convenience' suggests an alternative but doesn't explain it. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves notable gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It doesn't explain the role of phase or project, but the schema already provides basic 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 task as completed') and defines what it does ('sets status to completed'). It's specific to the task resource, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update_task_status, relying on 'convenience method' to imply specialization.

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 phrase 'convenience method' implies a shortcut but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus update_task_status or other task operations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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