complete_planner_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It openly states this is a real write, warns that ambiguous title matches cause a refusal with candidate listing rather than a guess, and clarifies that reopen sets 0%. These are non-obvious behaviors that significantly aid the agent.

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 compact and well-organized: a two-sentence summary front-loads the core action and warning, followed by a clean 'Args:' list with bullet-style explanations. Every sentence carries information; there is no fluff or repetition. The structure makes scanning quick and effective.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return-value details. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, ambiguity handling, and the reopen effect. For a write operation with a clearly defined parameter contract, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter is explained: task_id is 'Exact Planner task ID. Preferred when known.'; title is 'Task title or a distinctive part of it' and is used only when task_id is empty; plan specifies the search scope; reopen is defined as 'undo a completion (sets 0%)'. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Mark a Planner task complete') plus an explicit alternative ('or reopen it'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_planner_task and list_planner_tasks. The phrase 'This is a real write' reinforces its mutating nature, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on parameter selection: 'Give either task_id (exact, preferred) or title' and explains the fallback logic when using title (matching open tasks only, and reopen behavior). It also explains when to set reopen to undo a completion. This tells the agent exactly how and when to invoke the tool, including the preferred path.

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