workflowy_complete_node

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. While 'Mark as completed' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, how completion affects node visibility/behavior, or what happens if applied to already completed nodes. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a mutation 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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core action and resource with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description should do more to explain the mutation's effects, prerequisites, and relationship to sibling tools for a complete understanding.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 required parameter ('node_id'), the description fails to explain what 'node_id' represents, how to obtain it, or its format. However, the baseline is 3 since there's only one parameter, though the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 as completed') and resource ('a WorkFlowy node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'workflowy_uncomplete_node' which performs the opposite operation, nor does it mention what 'completed' means in the WorkFlowy context.

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 node), when not to use it (e.g., on already completed nodes), or direct alternatives like 'workflowy_uncomplete_node' for reversing this action.

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