task_complete

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

Annotations already indicate it is non-read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds that it stores task metadata only, does not start or execute an agent, and is isolated by project_path. It does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or what state transition 'complete' causes.

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 short and front-loads the usage context, with no filler. The phrasing 'sessions: complete' is awkward, and 'Isolated by project_path' largely repeats schema content.

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 mutation tool with annotations and fully described parameters, it covers the non-execution nature and path isolation. It still omits what completion does to task state, whether it triggers downstream behavior, and how the optional result object is used.

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%, so taskId, project_path, and result are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the project_path isolation behavior and adds no new parameter-level guidance, making the baseline of 3 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 uses 'complete' but never explicitly states that it marks a task as completed or precisely what resource is affected. The metadata-only clarification distinguishes it from agent-execution tools, but it remains ambiguous relative to siblings such as task_update and task_cancel.

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?

It provides a usage context ('when tracking persistent work across Codex sessions') and rules out using it to start or execute an agent. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives for task_cancel, task_update, or other task lifecycle tools.

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