Mark a task as done and close it in Worksection by providing project and task IDs.
Mark a task as done, closing it in Worksection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task id. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project the task belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the task is marked done and closed, but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether it triggers notifications, requires permissions, or what the response contains. For a state-changing mutation, this is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. It earns its place, though it could add a brief note about reversibility or side effects without becoming bloated.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It tells the agent what the tool does but not what happens after completion, whether it can be undone, or how the response should be interpreted. The sibling reopen_task hints at reversibility but the description does not address it.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a task') and states the effect ('closing it in Worksection'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like reopen_task, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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 implies the tool is for completing tasks, and the sibling list includes reopen_task, which suggests the opposite operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of when to prefer an alternative like update_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.