Complete task

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Complete task' without explaining what that entails (e.g., status change, irreversibility, side effects). This is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and includes the endpoint, which is efficient. However, it lacks structure and could be improved by separating different pieces of information.

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's complexity (nested schema, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the effect of completing a task, return value, or how it differs from similar tools like 'weeek_update_a_task'.

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 0%, meaning the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'Body: text/plain' without describing the body's purpose or the required 'id' path parameter. The schema itself is complex with nested objects, yet the description adds no value.

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 it completes a task ('Complete task') and provides the HTTP method and path, which helps identify the purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other task-related tools like 'weeek_update_a_task' or 'weeek_change_board', which could also affect task state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task existence) or when not to use it (e.g., if task is already complete).

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