complete_task

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

The description goes beyond simple status change by detailing *how* the modification occurs: it avoids overwriting the title, notes, or due date. This is a valuable behavioral constraint for a write operation, adding specific context that even the annotations do not cover.

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?

It is a single, tightly written sentence where every word is necessary. It immediately communicates the exact function and its limitations.

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 definition is highly complete for its scope. The agent knows precisely which entities it is affecting and what the consequences of the call will be (status change without data loss).

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal semantic value. However, it provides crucial context that the IDs must be 'Google IDs,' which helps the agent understand the required input format.

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 purpose: marking a task complete. It distinguishes itself from a general update operation by specifying the constrained action of completion rather than a full modification.

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?

While the action itself implies usage, the description doesn't explicitly advise when to choose this tool over a general update tool. It is clear what the tool does, but not necessarily the full decision criteria for using it.

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