todo_complete

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious side-effect information — that completion newly unblocks other todos and returns their ids — which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the flag behavior, with the return side effect last. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotency profile. The description covers the mutation, its inverse, and the unblocking side effect; only permission or scope prerequisites are unaddressed.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning for the 'completed' flag beyond the schema's 'Defaults to true' by explaining that false reopens the todo. todo_id's semantics are left to inference, but the dual-mode explanation pushes past the baseline.

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 and resource ('Mark a todo complete') plus the inverse operation ('reopen with completed=false'), which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like todo_update or todo_archive, so it falls short of the top score.

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 tells the agent how to reopen (completed=false), which is a real usage condition, and the schema's project_id guidance covers the scope question. There is still no when-not guidance or named alternative for general todo edits, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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