anon_post_todos_todo_id_complete

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior: status is set to done, completer/timestamp/note are recorded, files go to attachments. It also discloses the key routing behavior that the project is derived from the API key. It does not confirm whether the action is reversible.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: action first, then permissions, then effects, then endpoint, then a routing note. No filler sentences. The parenthetical definition of the permission alternative is the only slightly dense clause.

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 four annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, side effects, status transition, and the non-obvious project-from-key routing. It leaves open whether completion is reversible or triggers notifications, a minor but real gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers completionNote and the files-as-attachments flow, and clarifies that no projectId is needed. It does not explain effective file size limits or the required base64 format, which the nested schema does provide.

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?

States a specific verb (complete) and resource (todo), with the endpoint POST /api/projects/{id}/todos/{todoId}/complete. Distinguishes itself from sibling anon_patch_todos_todo_id and anon_post_todos_todo_id_updates by being the dedicated completion action.

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?

Explicitly states authorization preconditions: requires todo:manage, or the current user is the assignee with todo:complete. This gives clear when-you-may-use guidance, though it doesn't name alternative tools for updating todos without completing them.

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