complete_todo

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only OPEN to-dos are affected, that query matching is substring by default and exact when exact=True, and that the completed item names are returned for verification. It does not specify behavior when both todo_id and query are supplied, but the core mutating behavior is clearly visible.

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 compact and well structured: action first, then targeting rules, then a return-value expectation. Every line adds useful information, and the line breaks make the parameter semantics easy to parse. No filler or repetition of schema-only facts.

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?

The description covers the main behavior well and an output schema exists, but it leaves important boundary cases implicit. Specifically, with all three parameters optional and no required parameters, it never states what happens if neither todo_id nor query is provided, and it does not define precedence when both are given. An agent calling the tool with defaults could unintentionally match every open to-do.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so this is entirely compensated by the tool description. It explains todo_id as the exact and safest target, query as a name match, and exact as controlling contains vs. exact matching with a default of false. All three parameters receive meaningful explanation beyond their type/default.

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 opens with 'Mark open to-do(s) as completed', which names a specific action and resource. It also distinguishes the tool by explaining the two targeting modes, making it clear how this relates to sibling tools such as cancel_todo or update_todo without confusion.

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?

It gives explicit decision guidance: use todo_id for exact and safest targeting, or query for name matching, and explains when to set exact=True versus False. It does not explicitly call out alternative sibling tools, but the parameter-selection guidance is clear and actionable.

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