Mark a task done or skipped

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: done counts toward percent complete, skipped is a deliberate dismissal that never counts, and todo reopens the task. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, each status is given meaningful context in a compact way, and the re-open note earns its place by completing the status model.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with a complete schema, the description covers the status behavior and even the date aspect. No output schema exists, but for a state-change tool the return value is not essential for correct invocation. The definition is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, including the date format, hire id/name, task id, and status enum. The description reinforces the status semantics but does not need to repeat parameter-level details; the schema carries the load.

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 one task on a hire done or skipped, with the day it happened.' It also clarifies the statuses (done, skipped, todo) and the semantic distinction between them, making it easy to separate from siblings like onboarding_task_add or onboarding_progress.

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: whenever a single task's status needs to be changed. It explains the meaning of each status choice, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is mostly implied.

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