complete_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — the outcome depends on governance mode (AUTO->COMPLETED, etc.) — but it does not explain the required claim_token, whether completion can be undone, or what happens to a partial result.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The parenthetical state mapping is dense but every element carries meaning, and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the governance outcome but leaves the required claim_token's role and the meaning of result/result_refs unexplained. An agent can select the tool but may not invoke it correctly.

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 0% and there are 4 parameters, yet the description names none of them. The required task_id and claim_token and the optional result/result_refs are entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Complete) and resource (task) and even enumerates the resulting states per governance mode, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like approve_task, review_task, or fail_task, which are the natural alternatives for ending a task's lifecycle.

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 governance-state transitions imply when completion is legitimate, giving some context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (approve_task, review_task, fail_task) an agent should consider instead, so routing is left to inference.

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