Update, complete or restore a task

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description details side effects: completing a task creates a time entry, increases the linked goal's logged hours, and counts against the daily limit. It also warns against guessing actualMinutes, adding behavioral nuance the schema and annotations lack.

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 but information-dense, front-loading the write nature and then systematically covering each action's side effects. It avoids fluff, though the long run-on about complete could be slightly cleaned up; it's still 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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and three complex actions, it explains the core behaviors, side effects, and required conditions well. It doesn't cover failure states or edge cases like double-completing, but the essentials are all present, and the rich parameter descriptions fill 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description enriches key ones: actualMinutes is explicitly called out as required-for-complete and in whole minutes, date is clarified to default to today in user's timezone, and get_context.today guidance adds practical usage context 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 states a specific verb and resource, breaking down the tool's three actions (update, complete, restore) and their effects. It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools by positioning it as the single task-lifecycle manager, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use each action, such as using 'complete' rather than setting DONE so time is logged, and instructs to ask the user for actualMinutes. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like goalslot_log_time, but the self-contained lifecycle framing implicitly guides selection.

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