Worksection MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It adds minimal context by implying a state change to 'done', but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), side effects (e.g., notifications), or confirmation specifics. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Mark a task as completed'), followed by minimal parameter and return info. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant given the schema and could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with one parameter), annotations provide safety and idempotency info, but no output schema exists. The description covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks details on return values (beyond 'Confirmation'), error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, with the parameter 'id_task' fully documented in the schema as 'Task ID to complete'. The description repeats this without adding extra meaning (e.g., format examples, sourcing instructions). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance beyond that.

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 action ('Mark a task as completed') and resource ('Worksection Task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'worksection_reopen_task' by specifying completion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all related tools like 'worksection_update_task'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist, user must have permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot complete already completed tasks), or compare with siblings like 'worksection_update_task' which might also handle status changes.

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