complete_asana_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., irreversible state change, whether other tools reflect the completion, any permissions needed). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, compact sentence with zero waste. It states the purpose clearly and efficiently. This is appropriately concise for a simple mutation tool.

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 no annotations and no additional behavioral detail, the description is thin. While the output schema exists (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description doesn't address irreversibility, error conditions, or the 'account' parameter's role. Given its simplicity, more behavioral context would be expected.

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%, meaning both parameters (account and task_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The task_id is described as a GID and account as an identifier, which is adequate.

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 "Mark an Asana task complete" uses a specific verb (mark complete) with a specific resource (Asana task), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_asana_task and get_my_tasks. It's concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar completion tools like complete_commitment or complete_delegation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like complete_commitment or complete_follow_up. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the task must exist, whether the user must own it) or when this is the appropriate tool among many completion-type siblings.

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