asana_update_task_status

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 phrase 'Mark complete or incomplete' implies a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or any error behavior. 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. While it could be more informative, it is not verbose or redundant, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is still under-specified. It does not describe what happens after the update (e.g., return value, success/failure indications), nor does it mention any prerequisites or edge cases. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to make the tool reliably callable, but it falls short.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description only hints at the 'completed' parameter by mentioning complete/incomplete, but it does not explain the meaning of 'taskId' or clarify that 'completed' is a boolean flag. It fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names and types, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill the parameters correctly.

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 'Mark' and the resource 'Asana task', with the specific state change 'complete or incomplete'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like asana_create_task and asana_get_tasks, as it focuses on updating status rather than creating or listing. However, it could be more explicit that this is an update operation on an existing task, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 for updating task status but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. No mention of when to use this tool versus creating a task or fetching tasks. While the context is clear, there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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