task_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses concrete side effects: setting status to done, progress to 100, releasing the lock, and making the task un-reclaimable. This goes beyond the schema and provides meaningful behavioral expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage timing, note requirement, and a warning. Every sentence earns its place without redundant phrasing or excessive length.

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 description covers the main effect, recommended usage timing, and a key constraint (cannot re-claim). With an output schema and fully documented parameters, the missiing details (e.g., expected_version behavior, return type) are not critical. It provides enough context for safe invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a minor hint about the note ('Pass a closing note saying what landed'), but the schema already explains it as the closing note appended to the thread. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 opens with 'Mark a task done: status done, progress 100, lock released, in one call,' which specifies the exact verb, resource, and resulting state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_update or task_claim by condensing multiple updates into a single completion 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 description gives explicit timing guidance ('Complete a task as soon as it's actually finished — don't batch completions at the end of a session') and a warning ('A done task can't be re-claimed'). It does not name alternative tools, but the context clarifies when to use this tool over a general update.

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