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 load and does: it discloses snooze clearing, that a done task won't ring its alarm, where the task moves, idempotent re-completion behavior, and the exact error for an unknown id. That is unusually complete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Five short sentences, every one load-bearing: effect, side effect, state transition, idempotency, error, undo route, return shape. The primary action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, resulting state, repeat invocation, error behavior, and even the return value ('Returns the task'). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% on the single id param, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by specifying the failure mode for an unknown id, including the exact error text. It doesn't restate id provenance, but the schema already does.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Mark a task done now') and implicitly distinguishes itself from delete_task and reopen_task through the stated effects. An agent can tell what this does without reading 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?

Explicitly routes the undo case to reopen_task, which is the key alternative. It doesn't address when to prefer delete_task over completing, but the primary sibling decision is covered.

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