Complete Task

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

Annotations already declare the important behavioral traits: not read-only, open-world, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds only the core action, without extra context such as whether completion is reversible or what happens if the task is already completed.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action, and uses a concrete example without unnecessary wording.

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 three-parameter operation with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is adequate. It does not mention return behavior, but no output schema exists and the main action is clear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so task_id, list_id, and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 as completed." This clearly distinguishes completion from sibling operations like update_task or delete_task, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 example "mark the bank call as done" implies the intended use case, but it does not explain when to use this instead of gtasks_update_task or when not to use it. Guidance is present only by example.

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