ticktick_complete_task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it 'marks as completed,' which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide extra behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'completed' entails (e.g., archiving). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections (Args, Returns, Examples). It's appropriately sized, though the Examples are somewhat redundant and could be more illustrative. No wasted sentences.

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 annotations cover mutation and idempotency, and an output schema exists (Returns mentions JSON), the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks context on error handling, side effects, or how it fits with siblings, leaving gaps for a tool that modifies task state.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section detailing task_id and project_id with minimal semantics ('ID of the task/project'). This compensates somewhat, but it doesn't explain format, sourcing, or relationships beyond what's implied. With 0% coverage, baseline might be lower, but the Args add basic meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark a TickTick task as completed') and identifies the resource ('task'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like ticktick_update_task (which might also handle completion) or ticktick_delete_task (another task modification).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like ticktick_update_task (which might handle partial updates including completion). The examples are generic and don't clarify context.

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