ticktick_complete_task

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it 'marks a task as complete', which aligns with these annotations by implying a state change without destruction. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits, relying on annotations for core traits.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence ('Mark a task as complete.'), front-loaded and waste-free. Every word contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with idempotency), annotations cover key behavioral traits, and an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns). However, the description lacks details on usage context, parameter specifics, and sibling differentiation, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description implies a single parameter (task to mark complete) without detailing it. Since there's only one parameter (a nested object with task_id and project_id), the description's simplicity is adequate, but it doesn't explain the parameter structure or requirements beyond the basic action.

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 'Mark a task as complete' clearly states the action (mark as complete) and resource (task), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'ticktick_uncomplete_task' or 'ticktick_delete_task'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what 'complete' means in this context.

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 like 'ticktick_uncomplete_task' (for reversing completion) or 'ticktick_delete_task' (for removal). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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