task_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'advancing the process' hints at mutation, it fails to disclose whether this is destructive, if it requires task assignment first, idempotency characteristics, or what 'confirmation' entails. A state-changing workflow operation requires more behavioral context.

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 three-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded, but the second sentence (regarding output variables) is misleading given the empty schema. The third sentence ('Returns confirmation') is vague. Length is appropriate but content accuracy is compromised.

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 tool that transitions process state, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of how to identify the task (ID parameter missing from schema), the expected return structure beyond vague 'confirmation', side effects on process instances, and error scenarios. The empty schema combined with minimal description leaves 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?

The description claims one can 'optionally provide output variables,' but the input schema has zero parameters (empty properties object). This is a serious discrepancy that would mislead an agent into attempting to provide non-existent parameters. When schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true here), the baseline is 3, but this description contradicts the schema rather than complementing it.

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 ('Complete') and resource ('user task') and explains the outcome ('advancing the process'). It distinguishes from siblings like task_claim, task_delegate, and task_resolve by specifying the terminal action. However, it lacks BPMN-specific context about what completion entails (e.g., boundary events, variable submission).

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 fails to specify when to use this tool versus task_resolve or task_delegate, which are distinct completion-related actions in BPMN. More critically, it references 'optional output variables' that do not exist in the empty input schema, creating confusion about prerequisites and usage patterns.

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