complete_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation but says nothing about whether completion is reversible, idempotent, whether it drops associated data, or what the response contains — all material for a state-changing call.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and no padding or repetition of the name. Its brevity is efficient even if the content is thin.

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, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should at least cover return behavior and reversibility. None of that is present, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently.

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 single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description would need to clarify that "id" is the idea identifier and what format it takes. It says nothing about the parameter at all, leaving the only input entirely undocumented.

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 action on a specific resource ("mark an idea done"), which is a real state transition rather than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as park_idea, snooze_idea, start_idea, or update_idea, so an agent cannot tell from the text whether completion is a distinct status or just an update_idea call.

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 on when to call this versus alternatives, no preconditions (must the idea be started first?), and no exclusions. In a cluster of six status/CRUD siblings, the absence of any routing language leaves the choice to inference.

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