Complete task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation), destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic outcome (task moves to the resolved/done state), but says nothing about reversibility, behavior on an already-completed task, or permission requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only real gap is sibling disambiguation against update_task and any idempotency/error behavior.

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% for the single task_id parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format hints or constraints (e.g. how to obtain the ID), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Mark ... as resolved') and resource ('Redbooth task'), and the parenthetical '(done)' pins down the exact target state. It does not distinguish itself from update_task, which could plausibly also change status, so an agent may hesitate between siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the update_task alternative, and no note on prerequisites such as whether the task must be assigned to the caller or already be in progress. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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