complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the outcome and return value, but it omits whether completion cascades to subtasks, whether it is reversible, whether permissions are needed, or what happens if the task is already complete.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action and identification mechanism are front-loaded, and the return-value sentence adds useful information without bloating the description.

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, the core invocation details are present: what the tool does, how to identify the resource, and what it returns. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks side-effect and reversibility caveats and does not steer the agent to sibling tools like complete_project.

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 100% for the single id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful clarification that the ID is stable, reinforcing that it is the primaryKey, but it does not provide additional format or source details beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a task complete' and distinguishes this from siblings like complete_project and delete_task. 'By its stable ID' also clarifies that the task is referenced by primary key rather than by name, which differentiates it from name-resolution tools.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that complete_project is the counterpart for projects, nor does it explain when complete_task is preferable to edit_task or other task mutations.

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