cmmn-complete_task

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

Discloses major behaviors: stores result, sets status, evaluates sentries, pre-flight gates for human tasks, sentry satisfaction, and acceptance criteria. Mentions return condition 'blocked_by'. Could be more explicit about side effects or permissions, but sufficient.

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?

Dense single paragraph that front-loads the main action and then details gates. Slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be split into bullet points for clarity, but concise overall.

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?

Covers main purpose, gates, and alternatives. No output schema, but mentions return of 'blocked_by'. Doesn't describe successful response format, but the description is fairly complete for a task completion tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with good descriptions. The description adds context for when to set confirm_human and force, explaining the gating logic. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 the verb 'completes' and resource 'task'. It explains the effect: stores result, sets status, evaluates sentries. It distinguishes from sibling cmmn-claim_complete_with_evidence for tasks with acceptance criteria.

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 says when to use an alternative: 'tasks with acceptance_criteria require the judge-layer evidence path — call cmmn-claim_complete_with_evidence instead, OR use force=true here to bypass.' Also explains when to use force=true and the conditions for human tasks.

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