complete task

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds the specific behavior of archiving, but does not disclose any prerequisites, side effects, or reversibility aspects beyond 'existing lifecycle'. This adds some context but is still thin on behavioral details.

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 sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, 'using the existing lifecycle' is somewhat abstract and may not earn its place without further explanation, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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 simple tool signature (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the core action. Yet it lacks details on return values, required task state, and potential side effects on related items, leaving some gaps for an agent to make fully informed invocation decisions.

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?

The only parameter, task_id, is self-explanatory as a UUID identifier, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not add any meaning about the parameter, such as how to obtain it, whether it must be an active task, or any format constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Complete and archive this Task') and identifies the resource ('Task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'complete_note' and 'archive_task'. However, the phrase 'using the existing lifecycle' is somewhat vague and doesn't fully explain what 'complete' entails in this system.

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 implies usage for completing and archiving a task, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives such as 'reopen_task' or 'archive_task' for other lifecycle transitions, so the agent is left to infer context from the name and resource type.

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