goldhold_task_complete

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. It does not mention that completing a task is likely a mutating and possibly irreversible action, nor does it describe side effects, permission requirements, or whether updates are allowed after completion. A single clause with no behavioral context 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. It conveys the core operation but skips context that would help an agent use the tool correctly.

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 simple mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of task completion, whether it is reversible, or how it relates to task_update and task_create. An agent could misuse this tool by applying it when a task should merely be updated.

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 already documents both parameters fully, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The omission is acceptable because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a task as completed.' It clearly identifies the operation as completing a task, which distinguishes it from creating or updating a task. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like goldhold_task_update or goldhold_task_create. The description implies use when a task should be marked complete, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or when another tool should be chosen instead. This leaves the agent without routing information.

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