complete_task

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

Beyond the annotations (which show idempotentHint=true), the description adds the precondition 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is an important behavioral constraint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence that includes the essential action and a prerequisite. No fluff.

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 simple mutation tool with annotations covering idempotency, the description is sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of return values or confirmation, which would improve completeness, especially given no output schema.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark a task as complete') and includes a precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'close_incident' which target specific types, but it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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 includes a functional requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which provides guidance on when the tool can be used. However, it does not advise against using it for specific task types or reference alternative tools like 'close_incident'.

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