complete_task

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining what state it sets, which fields are populated, and that the task is preserved in history. This clarifies the impact beyond the basic annotation hints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, then efficiently provides behavioral details and sibling relationships. Every clause contributes useful information without 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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, and usage context well. The only minor gap is not describing what the tool returns or explicitly confirming that id refers to the task being completed.

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% and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-evident, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level documentation, and there is no explicit statement that id is the task identifier.

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 action and resource: 'Mark a task as done / completed / finished' and further specifies the exact state change (status=COMPLETED, completedBy, completedAt). It also differentiates itself from delete_task and update_task, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('whenever a user says mark done, complete, finish') and identifies the alternative (update_task with status:COMPLETED) and the contrasting tool (delete_task). This gives clear routing guidance beyond the schema.

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