complete_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a meaningful authorization constraint (Claude-created tasks only, gated by user_requested), which is exactly the kind of context annotations would otherwise provide. However, it does not say what happens on rejection (error vs. silent no-op), whether completion is reversible via reopen_task, or what role tasklist plays.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the constraint that governs correct invocation; nothing is padding. The second sentence is dense and slightly convoluted, but every clause earns its place.

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 described, and the core gating rule is present. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the undefined tasklist parameter and the unstated failure mode for tasks not created by Claude leave an agent guessing.

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 extra param meaning must come from the description. It explains user_requested well, including its default-false implication and the condition for setting it, while tasklist is left entirely unexplained and task_id is only implied by the name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Mark a task completed") that an agent can act on immediately, and the state-change framing distinguishes it from list_tasks or create_task. It does not explicitly contrast with update_task or reopen_task, which are the nearest ambiguous siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional rule: without user_requested=true only Claude-created tasks can be completed, and the flag should be set only when the user explicitly asked. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't say when to prefer reopen_task or update_task instead.

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