Complete Todo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by revealing the failure mode ('Fails if the note isn't a to-do') and by implying the operation is reversible via the completed flag. It omits idempotency, permission requirements, and what happens to already-completed notes, though the output schema covers the success return.

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 with no waste; the action and scope come first, and the failure condition follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter toggle with an output schema covering the response, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the action, the bidirectional nature, and the key failure precondition. Only permission/auth context and error-detail expectations are missing, which is a modest gap.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. 'Complete or incomplete' usefully clarifies that the `completed` boolean is a two-way toggle rather than a one-shot completion, but note_id and the default=true behavior are left to the schema, leaving half the semantic load unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb (mark) and resource (to-do note) plus the bidirectional scope (complete or incomplete), which cleanly separates it from the note CRUD siblings like update_note and create_note. An agent can identify what this does without opening 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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool is clearly meant for notes that are to-dos, and the precondition 'Fails if the note isn't a to-do' bounds applicability. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over update_note for the same field, nor any stated prerequisites such as required permissions.

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