complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the return value includes a transaction ID for undo, implying reversibility. However, it does not disclose what happens if the task is already completed, if the task doesn't exist, or any side effects of the mutation. The word 'Mark' understates the destructive nature of the operation.

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, using a single sentence for purpose and bullet-point-like lines for parameters and return. It front-loads the main verb. Every sentence adds information, with no redundancy.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description explains parameter grouping and return value with undo info. However, it lacks any mention of error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., list must exist), or what the output schema contains beyond a transaction ID.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the two parameter options and that task_name uses fuzzy match. It clarifies the relationship between task_id, taskseries_id, and list_id. However, it does not provide format constraints or expected values beyond the schema types.

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 verb 'Mark a task as complete' and the resource 'task'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'uncomplete_task' by using the antonym 'complete'. However, with many task-related siblings, it doesn't explicitly disambiguate beyond the basic 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 provides explicit instruction on parameter usage: 'Provide either task_name (for search) or all three IDs.' This helps the agent choose between the two input methods. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use the tool (e.g., if task already completed) or when to prefer alternatives like 'uncomplete_task'.

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