task.done

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the close is terminal or reversible, how it behaves on an already-completed task, or what side effects (notifications, run cleanup) occur. Only the bare implication of a state transition is present.

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 short sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the closing clause is too vague to earn its place fully.

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 zero-parameter lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state terminal semantics and the relationship to task.start/task.cancel. It omits both, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly in ambiguous cases.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the phrase "with what came of it" strongly implies an outcome argument that the empty input schema does not define. This leaves the agent unsure whether payload data is expected, so the description mildly conflicts with the schema rather than cleanly supplementing it.

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?

"Close a task" gives a recognizable verb and resource, but the trailing clause "with what came of it" is vague about whether an outcome is supplied or merely recorded. With siblings task.cancel, task.start, and task.add in the same family, the description never distinguishes done (successful completion) from cancel (abandonment), which is exactly the distinction an agent needs.

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 when-to-use guidance is present. The description does not say whether task.start must precede it, whether an in-progress task is required, or when task.cancel is the correct alternative over task.done.

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