mark_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses idempotency, timestamp at UTC, the RECURRENCE-ID override mechanism, and response fields (series_remaining, overrides), going well beyond basic expectations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and keep every detail meaningful. The format is efficient without redundancy.

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 tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers expected output, idempotency, and the complex occurrence handling, making it complete for effective use.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It thoroughly explains the occurrence parameter, including None semantics and the override mechanism. Uid and calendar are not elaborated, but they are lower-complexity and the key parameter is well covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an event (or one occurrence of a series) done at the current UTC moment.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like move_occurrence and exclude_occurrence by focusing on marking done, and even mentions parity with those tools to reinforce its unique role.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use occurrence=None versus a specific occurrence, which is the main usage choice. It references sibling tools for parity but stops short of explicitly stating 'use this instead of X' for all alternatives.

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