ue5_task_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context — the dashboard computes duration and failed steps and displays the retrospective — but it omits what happens if no active task exists, whether closing is idempotent, and whether the closed task remains queryable via ue5_task_list.

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 core purpose and the required status field are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence adds information. The full bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length without adding new semantics, which is the main efficiency cost.

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 five-parameter task-lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers the must-have field, the retrospective intent, and the observable side effects (dashboard duration/failure steps). The two optional fields deliverables and how_to_verify go unmentioned, but the schema documents them adequately.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema for the key fields: it enumerates status values, glosses summary as 'what was implemented', and adds concrete guidance for lessons ('what to avoid over-complicating next time, better approaches found') that the terse schema text lacks.

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: 'Close the active task with a retrospective,' and enumerates the retrospective fields (status, summary, lessons). It is distinguishable from siblings like ue5_task_begin/ue5_task_step by the word 'close', though it never names those lifecycle siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Close the active task' suggests calling it at the end of a task session, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites (must a task be active?), no when-not guidance, and no mention of the begin/step siblings that form the workflow.

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