Mark a task done, or reopen it

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: completion time is recorded, progress is set to 100%, reopening clears both, and the previous state is preserved in the entry. It also explains the reversible nature and why no confirmation prompt is shown. This is rich behavioral context without any contradiction of 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 three purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then explains side effects and reversibility, with every sentence earning its place. The format is easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: what changes, what is cleared, reversibility, and the lack of confirmation. No important calling context is missing.

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 score is at baseline. The description does not significantly elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already states, but it does reinforce the done/reopen semantics that map to the 'done' boolean. This is adequate given the schema's completeness.

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 title and description both state a specific verb and resource: marking a task done or reopening it. The description adds concrete behavioral detail—recording completion time, setting to 100%, clearing on reopen—so the tool's exact function is unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to complete a task or to reopen a completed task. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives like update_task or when not to use it, but the specialized purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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