mark_task_done

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a mutation operation (status change) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, side effects (e.g., triggers notifications), or error conditions. The description adds no value beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context: parameter details, behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling), and what 'done' entails in this system. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The single parameter 'identifier' is undocumented in both schema and description—no explanation of what identifies a task (e.g., ID, name, format) or how to obtain it. This leaves a critical gap for tool invocation.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark') and resource ('a task') with the specific outcome ('as done (completed)'). It distinguishes from 'add_task' (creation) and 'get_next_tasks' (retrieval) by focusing on status update. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'done' means in this system's context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot mark already completed tasks), or relationships with sibling tools like 'add_task' or 'get_next_tasks'.

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