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 states the state change ('mark as completed') but does not mention whether the action is reversible, whether permissions are required, what side effects occur, or what return value to expect. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and the parameter with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, and the size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the absence of behavioral transparency and usage guidance leaves some gaps for an agent. It is adequate for making the basic call, but not fully complete regarding what happens after the call or what constraints apply.

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 fully covers the only parameter with a description ('Task ID to complete'), and the description merely restates that the task is identified by ID. No additional semantic meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Mark... as completed') and resource ('Bitrix24 task'), and specifies the identifier method ('by task ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks and create_task, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied: call it when you have a task ID and want to complete the task. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or alternatives. While no direct completion alternative exists among siblings, the description provides no exclusionary or situational guidance.

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