complete_task

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

The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is beyond what the annotations state, but it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or what happens after completion. Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the added behavioral context is minimal yet not contradictory.

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 states the action and prerequisite with zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 mutating task with one required parameter and good annotations, the description covers the purpose and the key prerequisite. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps, making this adequate for tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for sys_id and close_notes, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters should be used or formatted.

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 uses the specific verb 'Mark' with the resource 'task' and the action 'complete', clearly distinguishing it from generic tools like update_task or close_incident. The scope is unambiguous: it marks a task as complete. This is a precise and non-tautological purpose statement.

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 states the prerequisite WRITE_ENABLED=true, which gives some context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task or close_incident, nor does it mention any exclusion scenarios. The context is implied but not explicit.

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