swsd_update_task_state

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

The annotations already convey write (readOnlyHint=false), destructive (destructiveHint=true), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) traits. The description adds beyond those by stating the precise effect: `completed: false` reverts to 'New', re-applying the same value is a no-op, and the tool is described as a 'safer wrapper' for the common transition. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is in the first clause, usage instructions follow, and the WRITE/idempotent note is packed into a short final phrase. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given the three required parameters are fully documented in the schema and there is no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: purpose, exact parameter effects, when to avoid it, and behavioral guarantees. Sibling tools like swsd_list_incident_tasks provide the context for obtaining task_id.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including incident_id's auto-detection logic and task_id's source. The description's 'Pass `completed: true`...' line mostly restates the schema's completed parameter semantics, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a SWSD incident sub-task as complete or incomplete.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling swsd_update_incident_state by focusing on sub-task state transitions, and explicitly excludes finer states like 'In Progress'.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: for the common done/not-done transition via `completed: true/false`. It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative: 'For finer state control (e.g., "In Progress"), use the SWSD UI directly.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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