complete_todo

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

Annotations already convey idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a useful instruction about reading todos://all for the id, but no new behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations already imply.

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 core action and immediately followed by the key usage hint. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to correctly invoke it. It states the action, the parameter, and the prerequisite for obtaining the id.

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 sole parameter todo_id is described by name and reinforced with 'by id' in the description. The schema provides integer type and required status, so the parameter is sufficiently clear even with 0% schema description coverage.

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-object structure ('Mark a todo as done, by id') that clearly identifies the action and target resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools add_todo and remove_todo.

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 an explicit prerequisite: read todos://all first if the id is unknown. It does not explicitly contrast with add/remove, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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