complete_task

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

The description details exactly what state changes occur: sets status='done', records completion_summary, clears active_session_id. It also specifies the return structure. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world) by providing concrete behavioral details without contradiction.

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 well-structured: three short paragraphs followed by a bulleted 'RETURNS' section. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return fields (completed, next_task, message). It also explains the behavioral impact and usage context, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that 'verification_summary' becomes 'completion_summary' and that 'task_id' comes from 'get_next_task', offering meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Mark a project task as done') and the resource ('project task'), using specific verbs and distinguishing the tool by mentioning it closes the Jered Loop and returns the next pending task, which differentiates it from siblings like get_next_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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE ending a session — Jered's rule: consciously close each task.' It also explains the effects (sets status, records summary, clears session). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear enough for a completion tool.

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