complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: a hard security constraint (never include passwords, tokens, API keys, or sensitive form values), multi-agent scoping semantics with a named rejection error (TAB_NOT_OWNED), and a configurable cap (default 8, 1-64). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a completion tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and completion condition, then layers constraints in descending priority. Dense and slightly run-on in the multi-agent clause, but essentially every sentence earns its place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the full load, and it does: trigger condition, safety rules, multi-tab and multi-agent semantics, and session-token scoping. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: tab_id is scoped to multi-tab/session disambiguation and session_token is restricted to sessions started by start_visual_session. It does not, however, clarify summary formatting or length limits.

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 terminal state ('Signal that the task is fully complete') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like partial_task, fail_task, and stop_task by defining the exact completion condition. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit ONLY-call-when condition ('all data collected, all entries made, all actions performed') and conditional guidance for both optional params: tab_id when multiple tabs could be active, session_token only for client-owned visual sessions created by start_visual_session. Alternatives and exclusions are spelled out.

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