complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the side effects: status is set to 'done', a completion timestamp is recorded, and the completion is logged to the parent project note automatically. It does not address edge cases like already-completed tasks, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: the status change, the timestamp, the automatic logging, and the parameter semantics. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, and parameter semantics. Minor gaps remain around failure handling and idempotency, but nothing critical is missing for a typical agent call.

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?

Even though the schema itself has no parameter descriptions, the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains that task_id can be either a task ID or a file path, and that summary is optional and appended to the task body. This adds meaning well beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Mark a task as done,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_task and update_task_status by naming the exact terminal state and the automatic logging behavior.

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 intended use is clearly implied: call this when a task is finished and should be marked as done. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as update_task_status for non-done status changes or cancel_task for abandoning a task.

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