complete_task

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the important constraint that WRITE_ENABLED must be true. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could detail effects like whether the task becomes read-only or triggers workflows.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key requirement with no wasted words. It earns its place.

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 tool without output schema, the description provides the essential action and a prerequisite. However, it omits information about return values, side effects (e.g., state changes), and error conditions, leaving the agent somewhat underinformed.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('sys_id' and 'close_notes'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as complete') and the resource ('task'), with a specific prerequisite highlighted. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'close_incident' or 'close_change_request' which may have more specific use cases.

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 description mentions a critical prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), providing some context for when the tool is usable. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this generic 'complete_task' versus more specific completion tools for different task types.

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