obsidian_complete_task

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavior on multiple matches, idempotency, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Description is very short and to the point, front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured with a clearer separation of description and args.

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?

With output schema present, return values are covered. But the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., note must exist, task must exist) and edge cases. Adequate for a simple tool but not complete.

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 0%, so description should compensate. It lists args but only gives minimal explanation (e.g., 'Text to match in task description' adds little beyond the parameter name). vault and path have no explanation.

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 'Mark a task as completed by matching its description' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_uncomplete_task (reverse) and obsidian_update_task (general update).

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 usage when a task needs completion, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like using update_task to set completed status. No explicit guidance.

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