gws.tasks.complete

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it explicitly mentions reversibility, that the task is not deleted, the default tasklist behavior, and the exact return fields. This gives the agent a fuller understanding of side effects.

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 concise and efficiently structured in three sentences. Every sentence adds value: what happens, reversibility, default behavior, and expected return contents. No redundant or filler language is present.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the action, side effect/reversibility, defaults, and return shape, while annotations cover safety semantics, and sibling tools give context for alternatives.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description is not required to explain parameters in depth. It does add practical context for tasklist defaulting to '@default' and notes the account default only appears in the schema. No significant additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 operation: 'Mark a task as completed (sets its status to ''completed'')'. It specifies the exact resource (task) and action, and distinguishes itself from deletion by emphasizing 'This is reversible — the task is not deleted.'

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 conveys that this tool is for completing tasks and not for deleting them, which indirectly distinguishes its use from deletes. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gws.tasks.delete or how to revert the completion operation.

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