todoist_complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Mark as complete') which implies a mutation, but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., tasks become archived, completion timestamps), permissions required, error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Mark one or more tasks as complete') and resource ('in Todoist'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, with every part earning 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'complete' means operationally), error handling, and return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (tasks, task_id, task_name) and their relationships (anyOf logic). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying batch vs. single operations or search behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('tasks in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_get_tasks (read) and todoist_delete_task (remove), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with todoist_update_task which might also change task status. The description is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tasks must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot complete already completed tasks), or comparisons with siblings like todoist_update_task (which might handle status changes differently). Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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