complete_task

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of no-op behavior aligns but doesn't add much beyond that. It does add the detail of specific field updates (percent-complete, timestamp), which is useful context. However, there is no note on permissions or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise with a clear first sentence stating the primary action, followed by specific behavioral details and parameter explanations. Each sentence serves a purpose 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?

For a tool with only 3 simple parameters and an output schema (though not detailed here), the description covers the core behavior, idempotency, and locking. It could benefit from noting required permissions or that the task must exist, but these are minor given the simple scope.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains each parameter: list_id is the list identifier, task_uid is the task's UID (with a pointer to get_tasks), and etag is for optimistic locking. This adds meaning beyond parameter names, but it's basic and doesn't elaborate on syntax or edge cases.

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 it marks a task as completed, with specific state changes (status to COMPLETED, percent-complete to 100, timestamp). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task or create_task by focusing solely on completion.

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 explains the idempotent no-op behavior when already completed and mentions optimistic locking via etag. It does not explicitly contrast with update_task, but the completion-specific action is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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