mark_todo_done

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns the string 'marked as done' on success and is idempotent (calling on an already-completed todo is a no-op). This meets the transparency burden.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, usage equivalence, return/example, and side effects. Each sentence adds value, and key info is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it relates to other tools, return format, and side effects. It is complete without missing critical details.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a description. The description adds an example and context, slightly enhancing understanding. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but the example pushes it to 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Mark a todo as completed (status="done")'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_todo and reopen_todo by describing it as a convenience shortcut for the most common state transition.

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 explicit usage guidance: it is a convenience shortcut equivalent to update_todo with status='done' but communicates intent more clearly. It also mentions idempotency, which guides the agent on when it is safe to use.

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