complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important side effects: recording completed_at, appending to the Agent Log, linking deliverables, and auto-unblocking dependent tasks. It does not clarify whether unblocking applies to failed/cancelled statuses or discuss reversibility, but the core side effects are well covered.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then enumerates side effects. No filler or redundant wording; every clause adds relevant context.

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?

The description covers purpose, main parameters, and the most significant side effects in a compact form. The main gap is that 'automatically unblocks dependent tasks' is ambiguous for failed/cancelled statuses, and there is no output schema or annotation to fill in remaining 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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description mostly reinforces what the schema says (summary is appended to log, deliverables are linked), without materially adding new parameter-level semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a task as completed (or failed/cancelled)'. It clearly identifies this as the terminal-status action and mentions the key side effects, which distinguishes it from siblings like update_task or claim_task.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a task reaches a terminal state—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like update_task for non-terminal edits or claim_task for assignment. The context is clear, but exclusion guidance is missing.

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