complete_task

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the task's status changes to completed, but discloses no further behavioral context such as side effects on task ordering or visibility. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not rich.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-change operation, though it is very close to restating the tool name.

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 with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main missing piece is any explicit statement about behavior when the task is already completed, but the idempotentHint annotation partially covers that.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly explaining that task_id comes from list_tasks and task_list_id comes from list_task_lists. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Mark a task completed.' This is clear and unambiguous as a verb-plus-resource statement. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_task or reopen_task, but the completion semantics are distinct enough to infer.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task or reopen_task. The usage is only implied by the description and tool name, and no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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