Complete task

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

Annotations only indicate that the operation is non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: already-completed tasks are unchanged, while repeating tasks advance on each call, which explains the non-idempotency and warns against retries. This goes beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important edge cases about already-completed and repeating tasks are stated 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and clear behavioral warnings, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. No additional prerequisites, return-value explanations, or alternative routing are necessary for this level of 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 description coverage is 100%, and the tool-level description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema. The task_id parameter is documented with the same behavioral notes, so the description does not compensate beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Complete') and resource ('a task'), and clarifies the action's semantics by noting that already-completed tasks are unchanged while repeating tasks advance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like uncomplete_task, but the verb and resource are enough to identify the tool's role.

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 provides clear context that completing a task is the intended action and warns against blind retries because repeating tasks advance on each call. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the retry warning is practical guidance for when not to call again.

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