Dida365 MCP Server

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. While '标记为已完成' (mark as completed) implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, how it affects task dependencies, or what happens if the task is already completed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 very concise - just two sentences that directly state the purpose and required parameters. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations and sibling tool differentiation.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after marking a task complete (success indicators, error conditions, return values), nor does it address important behavioral aspects like idempotency, permissions, or side effects. Given the context of sibling tools that might overlap, more guidance is needed.

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 already documents both parameters (task_id and project_id) adequately. The description mentions these parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('将指定任务标记为已完成' - mark a specified task as completed) and the resource (task). It's specific about what the tool does but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_task' which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks 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. With sibling tools like 'update_task' that might also handle task status changes, there's no indication of when 'complete_task' is preferred or what prerequisites might be needed. Only basic parameter requirements are mentioned.

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