ecosystem_task_done

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it mutates status to 'done', performs a git commit and push, and validates agent ownership. These side effects go beyond the schema and inform the agent of the tool's impact. It does not, however, detail failure modes or error handling.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and then adding the ownership verification as a supporting detail. No redundant information or filler, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and side effects but omits return value, error conditions, and the meaning of the optional tasks_file. It is adequate for basic selection and invocation but not fully complete for a tool with mutating side effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies task_id and agent_id through the ownership check, but tasks_file remains unexplained, and no types, defaults, or formats are provided. This partially bridges the schema gap but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 uses the specific verb 'Marca' (marks) and clearly identifies the resource (a task) and the exact action: set status to done, commit, and push. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ecosystem_task_add and ecosystem_task_claim by focusing specifically on completion, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 ownership verification requirement ('Verifica que el agent_id que completa es el que la reclamó') implies the tool should be used only when the calling agent is the one who claimed the task, providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases beyond the ownership condition.

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