asana_complete_task

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

Annotations already indicate the mutation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the toggle behavior and default value, but does not disclose side effects such as completion timestamps, notifications, or the response shape. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and the key parameter variance in minimal space.

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 two-parameter toggle operation with strong annotation coverage, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit alternative routing and some post-condition detail, but those are minor given the schema and idempotent/non-destructive annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their meanings. The description repeats the completed:false behavior but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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-resource pairing ('Mark a task complete') and clearly covers both directions: complete by default and incomplete via completed:false. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools that read or update other task properties.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for changing task completion state, and the completed parameter explains the two modes. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like batch_update or bulk_update, nor does it mention any preconditions or when not to use it.

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