complete_tasks

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

The description discloses atomicity and auto-unblocking, which are key behavioral traits beyond what annotations would provide (none given). However, it omits other important details like whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or the response format. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description could be more thorough.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the tool category ('[TASK TOOLS]') and then states the precise action. No extraneous information or repetition.

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 complexity (mutating with side effects), the description is minimally adequate. It mentions atomic closure and unblocking but lacks context on usage, prerequisites, or outputs beyond what the output schema may provide. The high schema coverage partially compensates, but more detail would improve completeness.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Project name', 'List of task keys to complete'). The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Atomically closes one or more tasks and auto-unblocks dependents.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task (which modifies task fields) and add_tasks (which creates new tasks). The verb 'closes' and resource 'tasks' are specific.

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 such as update_task or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites or context for usage, which is a notable gap given the number of sibling tools.

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