Complete To Do tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it is 'batch-friendly' and marks tasks as completed (mutative behavior). However, it does not disclose whether this is reversible, what happens if some tasks fail (partial success), or auth/permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides usage hints. It earns its place, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and usage context).

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 (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent how to get input and how to batch. It would benefit from mentioning the success/error response shape or whether tasks are permanently deleted or just marked done, but overall sufficient for a straightforward mutation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'list_id' comes from todo_get_tasks and 'task_ids' are 'task ids' from the same source, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. It also clarifies the batch nature by saying 'pass every finished task id at once'. This is helpful but could be more precise about formats or constraints.

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 verb 'Mark' and the resource 'Microsoft To Do tasks as completed', and distinguishes itself from siblings like todo_get_tasks by mentioning input from that tool. It explicitly says 'batch-friendly', which differentiates it from single-task operations like todo_update_task.

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 advises to 'pass every finished task id at once' and to use the ids returned by todo_get_tasks, giving clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if tasks need partial updates, use todo_update_task instead), so it misses some comparative guidance.

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