Complete items

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly and non-destructive, and the description aligns by describing a status mutation. It adds the non-obvious behavior that completing repeating items reports the generated instance, which is useful context beyond the schema.

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-load the core purpose and add one behavioral caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The core status-changing behavior is clear and the output schema exists, but the description leaves the completion_date parameter unexplained and does not clarify what 'dropped' entails. Together with the missing exclusions in usage guidance, the definition is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema handles ids and all_occurrences, while the description reinforces the action enum values (complete/incomplete/dropped). However, completion_date receives no explanation in either the schema or the description, so parameter semantics are only adequately covered.

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 opens with a clear action ('Mark') and target ('tasks or projects'), and enumerates the three distinct states: complete, incomplete, or dropped. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like move_items, edit_item, and remove_items without needing to inspect the schema.

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 first sentence gives clear context for when this tool applies: whenever an item's completion status needs to be set. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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