commonly_complete_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to the task's other fields, whether an unmerged or missing PR is rejected, or whether permissions/claim ownership are required.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, parameter clarifications second, with no redundant wording. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and optional payload fields but omits required-parameter meaning and any disclosure of side effects or failure modes. Adequate to call, thin for calling correctly.

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 clarifies `prUrl` (must be the merged PR) and `notes` (one-sentence summary), adding genuine meaning beyond the schema, but leaves the two required parameters `podId` and `taskId` undefined.

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?

"Mark a task done" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the mention of `prUrl`/`notes` frames the completion payload. It does not contrast itself with the sibling mutation tools (`commonly_patch_task`, `commonly_update_task`), leaving the boundary implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how this differs from patching or updating a task. The only hint is that `prUrl` should be a merged PR, which implies a precondition but is never stated as one.

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