mark_due_date_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core state change and that the action can be reversed by marking as not completed. However, it does not explain behavior when the optional 'complete' parameter is omitted, whether a due date must already exist, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded French sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the purpose and the two possible states.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description is mostly adequate, but gaps remain: default behavior for the optional complete parameter is unclear, and there is no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions. The lack of annotations and output schema raises the burden on the description, which it only partially meets.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema: 'd'une carte' ties cardId to the card concept, and 'complétée ou non complétée' clarifies that the boolean complete controls the done/un-done state of the due date. This lifts it slightly above baseline.

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 a specific action: marking a card's due date as completed or not completed. It is semantically distinct from sibling tools like set_card_due_date, which changes the date itself, and remove_card_due_date, which removes it. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast these siblings, so it stops short of full 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 related siblings such as set_card_due_date or list_cards_by_due_date. It implies the use case through the wording but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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