tasks_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds value by revealing that completing a task releases a calendar hold. However, it does not disclose other side effects, reversibility, or required states, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action and a key consequence. No wasted words, well front-loaded, and perfectly scoped for a simple completion action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits parameter explanations, error conditions, and differentiation from tasks_cancel. For a tool with two parameters and siblings offering alternative workflows, this is insufficiently complete.

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 but fails entirely—it mentions no parameters. The agent learns nothing about what task_id or group_id represent beyond their types and names in the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'Mark' and resource 'task', with a clarifying parenthetical 'releases calendar hold' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_cancel or tasks_update. It clearly communicates the core action without ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tasks_cancel, tasks_batch_update), nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases like already completed tasks. The agent receives no contextual usage advice.

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