Complete task

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details beyond the core action. It does not mention idempotency, whether completing is reversible, how subtasks are affected, or what response to expect. With no annotation safety net, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short.

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 a single concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose in minimal words. It is front-loaded and waste-free, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 simple state-change tool with three parameters and high schema coverage, the description conveys the essential action. However, it lacks context about return values, error cases, or the role of optional parameters like account and tasklistId. It is minimally viable but not rich in contextual detail.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents taskId, account, and tasklistId adequately for a simple tool. The description does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 'Mark a task as completed' clearly identifies the action (marking) and the resource (a task), using a specific verb. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_tasks_create and google_tasks_delete, though it does not explicitly mention the task list context. Overall, the purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing task or a specific task list. The description simply states the action without context. Sibling tools like google_tasks_list and google_tasks_create suggest related workflows, but no explicit usage direction is provided.

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