memorybank_complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the action (mark as completed) but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or whether it triggers notifications. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description lacks return value, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., task must be open), and how it interacts with other tools. For a simple action, it could be adequate, but with 18 siblings, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds that the tool works for both TASK-* and EXT-* task IDs, which is slightly redundant with the schema's taskId description but provides confirmation.

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 verb 'Marca' and the resource 'tarea como completada', and specifies it works for both internal (TASK-*) and external (EXT-*) tasks. This distinguishes it from siblings like claim_task, delegate_task, or route_task.

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 implies usage when a task is completed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like claim_task and delegate_task, but no comparison or exclusion criteria.

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