set_due_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, but does not mention whether a due date must already exist, any side effects, permissions, or response behavior. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 only two sentences and is quite brief. The second sentence largely restates the first in different words ('update the status of a deadline' vs 'mark as complete or incomplete'), which is mild redundancy, but overall there is minimal waste.

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?

Despite having four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only offers a high-level statement. It does not explain the return value, behavior when a card has no due date, or how fields/detailLevel affect the response, leaving the agent without enough context for edge cases.

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 all parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description's reference to 'complete or incomplete' aligns with the dueComplete boolean but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already says. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool marks a card's due date as complete or incomplete, which is specific and uses a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool set_due_date, which sets the date itself, so it lacks explicit 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 phrase 'Use this tool to update the status of a deadline' gives a clear context for when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like set_due_date. Guidance is implied rather than explicit with exclusions.

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