complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the tool returns the task summary without history and directs to get_task for that. But it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or potential errors like version mismatch, leaving some significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second reveals return behavior and points to an alternative. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

The description does a good job for a simple state transition, covering action, eligible states, and return format. However, it lacks operational details like prerequisites, version checking behavior, and error handling, which are more critical given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description adds no information about any of the four parameters. The schema covers only 50% of parameters with descriptions, and the important 'expected_version' parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate 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 clearly identifies the action ('mark... as completed'), the resource (task), and the eligible states (claimed/in-progress/revision-requested). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_task and request_revision, which involve different workflow steps.

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 implies when to use the tool by specifying the task states it applies to, giving the agent context on eligibility. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, though the sibling list provides that context.

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