mark_task_done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a state mutation but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, behavior when the task is already Done, or error conditions.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no filler, yet the space saved is not used to convey anything an agent could act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is inadequate. Critical context — task_id provenance, idempotency, and failure behavior — is missing entirely.

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 0%, so the single parameter task_id is undocumented in the schema and the description does not compensate. It never states what a task_id is, its format, or where the agent obtains it, which is the main practical gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 names a recognizable action on a recognizable resource (mark a task as Done), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name 'mark_task_done' — no scope, no state-check semantics, and no differentiation from the sibling list_my_tasks, which is the tool an agent would need to find the task first.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite context. It does not mention that a task_id must first be obtained (e.g., from list_my_tasks), nor whether the action is idempotent or fails on already-completed tasks.

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