b24_tasks_complete

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 reveals only the action itself and says nothing about side effects (e.g., whether completion is reversible, whether it triggers notifications or automation), permission requirements, or failure behavior. The schema's personal_webhook note about write access hints at a read-only constraint, but the description itself stays silent.

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 a single, front-loaded Spanish sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is efficient and easy to parse, though the brevity borders on under-specification — a deficiency better captured in other dimensions.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It omits return behavior, reversibility, authentication/webhook requirements, and how it differs from b24_tasks_update. An agent would lack the context needed to call it correctly or anticipate consequences.

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 67%, leaving webhook_url completely undocumented. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: the id parameter's schema description already says 'ID de la tarea a completar', so the description's 'completada' is redundant. It also fails to explain the webhook_url parameter or the write-webhook requirement implied by personal_webhook.

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 'Marca una tarea como completada' states a specific verb (mark as completed) and resource (task), making the operation unambiguous. The 'complete' action is a distinct state-change among task siblings like b24_tasks_create, b24_tasks_update, and b24_tasks_get, so the purpose is clear even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 given on when to use this tool versus b24_tasks_update (which could also set task status) or other task-related siblings. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent decide between alternatives.

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