Finish a task

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral precondition that the plan must be complete and clean, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not describe side effects of finishing, but given annotations, this is sufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action 'Mark' and immediately specifies the target and qualifiers. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. The description provides the purpose and a precondition, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. It could mention the absence of return values, but that is not required without an output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description contains no parameter information because none is needed. This 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 identifies the resource 'task plan' and the resulting state 'finished'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like plan_task and task_status by indicating the finalization action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states the precondition 'complete, clean task plan,' which implies when the tool should be used and implicitly warns against using it on incomplete or unclean plans. It does not mention alternative tools, but the condition provides clear usage context. There are no explicit exclusions beyond the condition.

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