grocy_task_complete

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the non-obvious behavior that omitting confirm makes the call a no-op preview rather than a write. It stops short of saying whether the completion is reversible via the undo sibling.

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 terse sentences: the action, the endpoint, and the safety rule. Nothing is redundant and the most consequential fact (dry-run default) is stated outright.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description covers the key gotcha (confirm/dry-run) but omits done_time's purpose and whether a completed task can be restored. Adequate to call safely, incomplete to call fully correctly.

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 only 33%, so two of three parameters (task_id, done_time) are undocumented in both places. The description partially compensates by explaining confirm's dry-run semantics, but the meaning of done_time — presumably backdating the completion — is left entirely to inference.

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 and resource ('Mark a task completed') plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not name the closest sibling, grocy_task_undo, which would have made the intent unambiguous against the reverse operation.

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?

'Omit confirm for a dry-run' gives a critical usage rule that steers callers toward safe preview first. However, it never states when to prefer this over grocy_task_undo, or what preconditions must hold (task must exist and not already be completed).

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