Complete Issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'mark as done' but does not reveal side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the system's definition of 'done'. This is a minimal acknowledgment of a state change without meaningful transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence of eight words that clearly states the action with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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 tool is simple with one well-specified parameter and an output schema, so the minimal description may suffice. However, it lacks any context about usage, side effects, or disambiguation from the similar-sounding 'panelTodo_complete' sibling, making it only partially complete in the broader tool ecosystem.

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 single parameter 'issueId' is fully described in the schema ('Issue ID to complete') yielding 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, such as how to obtain the ID or expected format, so a baseline score of 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 the specific verb 'mark' and identifies the resource as 'an issue' in Panel Todo Pro, clearly indicating the operation. It distinguishes from sibling issue tools like addIssue/deleteIssue but does not address potential ambiguity with the closely named 'panelTodo_complete' sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'panelTodo_complete' for other entities, or whether any prerequisites apply. The description contains only the core action with no usage context or exclusions.

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