delimit_task_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key side effects: recording completion, updating session metrics, returning next task, and loop continuation until STOP. However, it omits details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits, leaving moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, no filler. The key action ('Mark current task done and get the next one') is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information 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?

Given the tool's medium complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the core workflow (complete, update, return next) and the loop context. It does not explain the session_id or venture parameters, but the schema covers them. The mention of STOP signal provides helpful contextual closure.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Mark current task done') and clearly states it also returns the next task, distinguishing it from simpler completion tools like delimit_ledger_done. The '(Pro)' qualifier adds context for availability.

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 implies this tool is for completing tasks in a loop, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., delimit_ledger_done for mere completion). No 'when not to use' or exclusions are mentioned.

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