Finalize an in-progress AgentMesh task by submitting its output result and releasing the claiming agent, preventing duplicate or stalled parallel work.
Mark an in_progress task as completed with output results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Output payload or summary result. | |
| task_id | Yes | ID of the task to complete. | |
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID that held the claim. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the state transition (in_progress -> completed) and that output results accompany it, but says nothing about idempotency, error behavior when the task is not in_progress or not claimed by the caller, or what happens to the agent's claim.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state precondition and outcome are stated immediately.
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 state-transition mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essential precondition is present but the edge-case behavior an agent needs (what if the task is not in_progress, is the result required, what is returned) is absent.
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 100%, so the schema already documents task_id, agent_id, and the result payload. The description adds nothing beyond a loose reference to "output results," making the baseline 3 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 gives a concrete verb+resource ("Mark an in_progress task as completed") and names the resulting state, which is more informative than the bare tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling fail_task, which is the nearest alternative for ending a task.
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 phrase "in_progress task" implies a precondition and thus when the tool applies, but there is no explicit routing guidance between this and fail_task, nor any statement about what happens if the task is in another state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.