complete_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that responses return simplified task objects without certain fields, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Update'), permission requirements, error handling, or side effects on child tasks beyond the parameter description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important details about ID format and response format. Both sentences earn their place by providing necessary context. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, side effects), error conditions, and typical usage patterns. While it covers ID format and response simplification, it doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data about the tool's operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the dot-notation format for task IDs, which is useful but not essential since the schema provides an example. No additional semantic context is given for parameters like 'goalId' or 'completeChildren' beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'completion status of tasks', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_tasks' or 'remove_tasks' by focusing on status modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_tasks' for read vs. write operations.

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 like 'add_tasks' or 'remove_tasks'. The description mentions task ID format and response format but offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical scenarios for invoking this tool. Usage is implied only through the action of updating status.

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