taskwarrior_complete

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true (safe to retry) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds useful context about what the tool does (marks as done) and provides examples, but doesn't mention potential side effects like timestamp updates or status changes beyond completion. 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, usage, args, returns, examples). Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the rest clarify parameters and outputs with minimal waste. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, idempotent operation) and the presence of an output schema (returns confirmation message), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters with examples, and return expectations, aligning well with annotations and sibling tools.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter in the Args section ('CompleteTaskInput containing the task_id to complete') and providing examples with both numeric IDs and UUIDs. However, it doesn't add detailed semantics beyond what the schema's property name and examples imply, keeping it at baseline level.

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 specific action ('Mark a task as completed') and identifies the resource ('task'), distinguishing it from siblings like taskwarrior_delete (remove) or taskwarrior_modify (edit). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when a task has been finished and should be marked as done'), providing clear context. It distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on completion rather than deletion, modification, or other states (e.g., taskwarrior_start/stop for active tasks).

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