Mark todo(s) done

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, setting expectations for a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying the scope of the mutation (single vs. all pending todos), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the conditional behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations—the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains the dual behavior and the schema documents the parameter, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 input schema provides full coverage with a 'description' for todo_id ('Todo id; omit to mark every todo as done'), matching the description exactly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('marks') and resource ('todo(s) done'), and distinguishes between two modes: marking a single todo when an id is provided, or all pending todos when omitted. This is appropriately specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_todos.

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 gives a hint about usage by explaining the effect of omitting todo_id, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., gitlab_api_request). It implies usage for marking todos done but lacks clear when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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