strety_complete_todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning automatic ETag handling, but does not cover other traits like idempotency, permissions, or side effects beyond toggling completion. This is a minimal but helpful addition.

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 concise sentence that states the primary action first and then adds a notable behavior (ETag handling). No unnecessary words or phrases, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 and lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and a key behavior. However, it does not explain the return value or any post-execution state changes beyond 'complete/uncomplete', which could leave some ambiguity for the agent.

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 100% with both parameters (todoId, uncomplete) described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so the baseline score 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 action: 'Mark a todo as complete (or uncomplete it).' It specifies the verb 'mark' and the resource 'todo', and distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, update, and list by focusing solely on completion status.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'strety_update_todo'. It fails to mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or excludes conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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