complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a state-changing operation ('mark done') but does not mention idempotency, reversibility, permissions, side effects, or response/error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, the object, and the parameter source without 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?

The description captures the core invocation details for a simple one-parameter tool, but it omits any indication of return values or error handling. For a state-changing tool with no output schema, the agent is left to guess what happens after the 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that the 'resource' parameter is a resource path returned by list_tasks. This gives the agent actionable information beyond the schema's plain 'string' type, though it could specify the path format more precisely.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark a reminder done') and a specific resource ('reminder by its resource path'). It also disambiguates from sibling tools by referencing the prerequisite list_tasks, making its role distinct from create_task or delete_event.

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 phrase 'as returned by list_tasks' provides clear context: a caller must first retrieve the resource path from list_tasks before using this tool. While it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, the prerequisite is explicit and sufficient.

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