task_complete

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description repeats that behavior with 'completing an already-completed task is a no-op.' It does not add much beyond the annotation, though it does clarify the 'open task' precondition. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core action and the only edge case in compact form.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit return behavior or failure details, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has a single task_id property with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what task_id refers to, how to obtain it, or any format expectations, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an open task completed.' It clearly identifies the action and scope, and the no-op qualifier distinguishes this from task creation/scheduling tools like task_upsert or task_schedule.

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 gives clear context: use this when an open task should be marked completed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is straightforward enough for selection among siblings.

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