complete_todo

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the failure condition (fails if not a to-do) which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether changing completed to false undoes completion). Basic transparency, but gaps remain.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main action. Includes a critical failure condition. However, it could be structured slightly better (e.g., separating parameter info), but no wasted words.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks return value info, idempotency, and prerequisites. Sibling tool exists but no comparison. The description is too minimal to fully guide correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the action. It does not explain that note_id identifies the note or that completed defaults to true. The description adds no semantic value over the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter roles.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (mark), resource (to-do note), and the two states (complete/incomplete). Also mentions failure condition for non-to-do notes, which distinguishes it from a generic update tool. Sibling get_note is for retrieval, so purpose is distinct.

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?

Description implies usage for toggling completion status but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or exclusion cases beyond the failure condition. Sibling get_note is not referenced, so the agent must infer context.

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