Complete Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the outcome (marking the task completed) but does not mention idempotency, behavior on already-completed tasks, invalid task IDs, or whether this is a direct status update versus a more comprehensive mutation. For a state-changing tool, this is a notable 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 five-word sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has one well-documented parameter, and includes an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of behavioral caveats or guidance on when to use this instead of update_task leaves a small but real completeness gap for an agent making a routing decision.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (task_id as a Task UUID), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('mark') and a clear resource ('a task') and conveys the exact state transition to completed. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_task, get_task, list_tasks, and delete_task, and even from update_task by signaling a focused finalization action.

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 action itself is obvious, but the description gives no guidance on when to prefer this over update_task, which could also modify task state. It provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites such as the task needing to exist or be in an open state.

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