Google Tasks 완료 처리

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds context that the id must come from tasks_list, which is useful, but it doesn't describe the return value or behavior on invalid ids. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 organized with a main statement, usage note, args list, and examples, making it easy to scan. However, the Args section largely duplicates schema descriptions, slightly lengthening the text without adding new information.

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 'complete a task' tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and invocation examples. It does not detail error handling or return values, but given the simplicity and the presence of annotations, these are not critical gaps.

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 already describes both parameters (id and listId) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that id comes from tasks_list and providing concrete examples mapping natural language to parameter values, which helps the agent construct calls correctly.

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 tool's function: 'Google Tasks의 할 일을 완료 처리합니다' (complete a Google Tasks todo). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tasks_add/delete/update/uncomplete by focusing on the completion action, and the examples reinforce the specific use case.

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?

It provides an explicit prerequisite: use the id from tasks_list, which guides the agent on the required workflow. The examples show when the tool should be selected (e.g., '여권 확인 완료했어'), offering clear context for invocation. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like tasks_uncomplete, but the workflow is clear enough for a simple tool.

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