complete_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation by marking completion state, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens for missing todos, permission requirements, or any response behavior.

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 sentence with no filler and a clear subject-verb-object structure. It is economically written, though the brevity leaves out meaningful usage and parameter detail.

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 tool, the core action is stated, but with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no differentiation from update_todo, an agent lacks key context to invoke it confidently and predict its effects.

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 the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. The phrase 'complete or incomplete' faintly maps to the completed boolean, but the description adds no real explanation of todo_id or how the completed value behaves beyond what the schema already shows.

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 names a specific verb ('mark'), a resource ('todo'), and the two states it toggles between ('complete or incomplete'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this from update_todo, but the completion-specific focus makes the core purpose readable.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use complete_todo versus update_todo or any other sibling tool. The phrase 'one authenticated user's' hints at scope, but the description never states exclusions or directs the agent to alternatives for other todo mutations.

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