Complete a To Do task

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by clarifying that the operation patches status, that the updated task with completedDateTime stamps is returned, and that recurring tasks are rolled forward rather than closed. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable edge case about recurring tasks without bloat.

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?

For a low-complexity mutation with two simple parametersley and no output schema, the description covers the action, the return value, and the notable recurring-task behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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%, and both parameters are simple string IDs with clear descriptions. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Marks'), a clear resource ('a To Do task'), and an explicit outcome ('completed by patching its status to completed'). It also distinguishes this completion action from sibling tools like todo_update_task and todo_delete_task by narrowing the operation to marking complete, not generic updating.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you want to complete a To Do task. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as todo_update_task for broader status changes, leaving some routing to inference.

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