complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that the note is accepted but not stored, that the task is set to both done and closed, that a status is returned, and that no assignee check occurs. Remaining gaps are idempotency (calling twice) and behavior on an invalid or already-closed taskId.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action comes first, then the note caveat, then the behavior and the routing advice. Slight redundancy with the schema's own note description keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the write semantics, the no-op parameter, and the return value. Only edge-case behavior (errors, repeat calls) is left unstated.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters in detail, including that note is not stored. The description largely restates that, adding only the hint to put important content in notify or answer, which is already in the schema text. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a task closed by its taskId') and pins the scope to tasks created via delegate, which separates it from sibling tools like ack_inbox or ack_decision. An agent can tell what it accomplishes without opening the schema.

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?

'Use for a task created with delegate' gives a clear trigger condition tied to a named sibling. It does not say when NOT to use it, e.g. whether it works on tasks from other sources or what to call instead for non-delegated items.

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