complete_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Mark a task as completed') but doesn't clarify if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., project progress), or has side effects like notifications. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by a parameter explanation, with no wasted words. Every sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details and usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use despite the 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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'task_id: The ID of the task to complete', adding clear meaning beyond the schema's basic title ('Task Id') and type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the single parameter, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID).

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 ('Mark') and resource ('a task') with the specific action ('as completed'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reopen_task' or 'update_task' that also modify task status, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reopen_task' (for undoing completion) or 'update_task' (which might also handle status changes). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the task must be in an incomplete state, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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