complete_task

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely repeats 'idempotent' rather than adding context. It says nothing about side effects (notifications, status transitions), required permissions, or behavior when the task is already complete or does not exist.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the operation and free of filler. It is arguably too terse given the missing guidance, but as a conciseness measure there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutation tool with a zero-documented parameter, the description omits what 'done' means, whether the change is reversible, and any error behavior for missing or already-completed tasks.

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% and the single parameter task_id has no description. 'Mark a task done' only weakly implies the parameter is a task identifier, adding essentially no format, source, or validity detail beyond the schema's type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a task done'), which is unambiguous about the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like create_task, list_tasks, or update_deal_stage, so the agent gets no help distinguishing it from other task/deal mutators.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_task, list_tasks, or update_deal_stage, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., task must exist, must be in an open state). The description gives only what the tool does, never when or when not to reach for it.

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