mark_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'intelligent reconciliation' but does not explain what the tool actually does to the task (e.g., whether it updates a status field, triggers side effects, or requires specific permissions). The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator, wasting no words.

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 has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits information about what happens to the task, return format, or success/failure behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters. The description's phrase 'intelligent reconciliation' loosely hints at the reconciliation_mode parameter but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mark task as complete or error with intelligent reconciliation for unchecked plan items.' It specifies the verb ('mark'), resource ('task'), and includes a distinctive feature ('intelligent reconciliation') that helps differentiate it from sibling tools like check_tasks or archive_tasks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_tasks or track_task_progress. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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