markTaskDone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes the core action (marking as complete), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether the change is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter options. Every word serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after marking a task complete (does it move to a different section? is there confirmation?), what errors might occur, or what the return value looks like. The minimal description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that modifies state.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning that taskId comes 'from getTasks output' and that text uses 'fuzzy-match', but these details are already covered in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Mark as complete') and resource ('a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'addTask' or 'getTasks' beyond implying this is a state change operation rather than creation or retrieval.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning two alternative ways to identify the task (taskId or searchText), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'addTask' for creation or 'getTasks' for retrieval. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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