mark_task_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of idempotency and the specific effect of adding a [DONE] prefix to the task. Lacks details on permissions or reversibility, but provides essential behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, a specific detail ([DONE] prefix), and idempotency. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and side effects well. It could add guidance on task existence or undo behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and sibling reopen_task.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly mention task_id. However, the meaning is obvious from the tool name and context; the task_id parameter identifies which task to mark done. This implicit clarity prevents a lower score but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of explicit documentation.

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 a specific action: mark a task as finished, with a concrete implementation detail (prefix [DONE]). It distinguishes from siblings like reopen_task, which is the inverse operation.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description—use it to mark tasks as done. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like reopen_task.

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