complete_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that completion defaults the date to today, which is useful context, but says nothing about reversibility or what happens to an already-completed task.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry the necessary behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero parameter description coverage the entry is thin. An agent cannot tell what notes accepts, what format done_on expects, or the effect on an already-completed task.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'done_on' default via '(default today)'; task_id and notes are entirely undocumented in both the description and 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Mark a task as done'), which clearly separates it from the task siblings add_task and list_tasks. It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the alternatives.

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 or stated preconditions; the parenthetical '(default today)' describes a parameter default rather than when to choose this tool over add_task or list_tasks. The usage is only implied by the tool's obvious purpose.

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