Завершить задачу

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds value beyond that by stating it writes the result text into the CRM and requires explicit user consent before proceeding, which is meaningful 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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then the consent caveat. No filler and everything is front-loaded, though the second sentence mixes two instructions (change data + get consent) in one clause.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the write target, and the confirmation requirement. It omits what happens on success, whether the task must exist, or how the id is obtained, but these are minor for this complexity.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'result' param has a description and the description adds an illustrative example ('Дозвонился, отправил КП'). However the 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Закрывает задачу' = closes a task) and clarifies the required payload (result text), with a concrete example. It is clearly distinguishable from crm_create_task and crm_tasks, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 a clear operational precondition: 'show the user what will be written and get consent' before invoking. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing guidance.

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