weeek_complete_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Mark a task complete' implies a mutation (changing task state), but doesn't disclose what side effects occur — e.g., whether completing a task affects subtasks, dependencies, timers (there's a weeek_task_timer sibling), or whether the operation is idempotent. An agent has no way to know what happens if the task is already complete.

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 an efficient single sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for a simple operation. However, being concise is not the same as being complete — the brevity here is more under-specification than economy.

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?

The tool is a simple single-parameter mutation, so complexity is low. However, it has no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage. A description of just 'Mark a task complete.' for a mutation tool that changes task state is insufficient — it should at least note whether the tool affects the task's status field, whether it's reversible (weeek_uncomplete_task exists implying reversibility), and what the return value is.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the single required parameter task_id. The tool description adds zero information about what task_id is, its expected format, or how to find it. With only one parameter and no description, the description must compensate, but it doesn't.

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 'Mark a task complete.' uses a clear verb+resource (mark/task) with a specific action (completing). It's distinguishable from the sibling weeek_uncomplete_task which would be the inverse operation. However, it's fairly minimal and doesn't describe any nuances like whether it toggles state or what prerequisites exist.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It's implicitly distinct from weeek_uncomplete_task (the opposite operation) and weeek_update_task (which may handle broader updates), but the description doesn't explicitly articulate these distinctions or mention any prerequisites like needing an agent to already have the task retrieved.

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