complete_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the state change ('done/completed') without mentioning irreversibility, error handling for non-existent IDs, required permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It conveys the essential information efficiently without redundant phrasing.

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 form with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., return value, error behavior) that would be helpful. It is a minimal viable description but leaves gaps relevant to agent decision-making.

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 100% and the sole param is self-explanatory ('The ID number of the todo to mark as done'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('todo item') with a clear mechanism ('by its ID'), making the action unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings (add, list, delete) by focusing on the completion state change.

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 implies usage when you have a todo ID and want to mark it as done, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like delete_todo or add_todo. No exclusions or context are given, so guidance is merely implied.

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