planner_complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the exact state change (percentComplete=100) and a confirmation requirement for certain external-people scenarios, but it does not clarify permissions, idempotency, behavior on already-completed tasks, or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and has no wasted text. The secondary confirmation note follows the primary purpose efficiently.

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 mutation tool, the core action and one conditional requirement are covered. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves important details about task_id and confirm_code usage under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It references confirm_code and provides a condition for needing it, but does not explain how to obtain or format the confirmation code, and it gives no explicit description of task_id beyond the obvious parameter name.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Mark a Planner task complete') and specifies the resulting state ('percentComplete=100'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools such as planner_update_task or planner_delete_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?

It gives clear context for the core action and adds a conditional rule for confirm_code when people who haven't signed up are involved. It does not explicitly compare against planner_update_task with percentComplete=100, but the intended use is still clear.

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