Finish Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the lifecycle transition, the file move, the lack of a review step, and the v2 no-op behavior. It could go further by mentioning error conditions or what happens if approval is required, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 key lifecycle transition. Every sentence adds value, including the v2 no-op caveat and the ADMIN approval usage note. No redundant or filler language.

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's simplicity, the output schema, and the 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is complete. It explains what happens, where files move, when to use it, and edge-case behavior on v2 projects. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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 parameters task_id and actor are already fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning about either parameter, so 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 clearly states the action: finishing an active task by moving it through the lifecycle transition active → done. It also specifies the concrete file move from _lifecycle/active/ to _lifecycle/done/, which distinguishes it from related tools like approve_task or archive_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 description provides explicit guidance: use this tool for tasks that do not require ADMIN approval, and notes that on v2 projects it is a no-op. It does not name specific alternative tools for approval-required tasks, but the context strongly implies the distinction.

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