dida365_batch_complete_tasksMark multiple tasks in a Dida365 or TickTick project as completed at once. Provide a project ID and task IDs to update their status together.
Mark multiple tasks in a project as completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_ids | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name - it says nothing about idempotency, behavior on already-completed or invalid task IDs, or partial-failure handling for a batch mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is not padded, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps in parameter and failure semantics.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, key operational details - ID formats and batch partial-failure behavior - are absent, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient for a 2-required-param mutation tool.
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 compensate for two undocumented required parameters. It mentions 'tasks' and 'project' conceptually but gives no ID format, no indication that task_ids is an array, and no guidance on whether all IDs must belong to the given project.
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 ... as completed') and resource ('tasks in a project'), and the word 'multiple' distinguishes it from the single-task sibling dida365_complete_task. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like dida365_batch_update_tasks, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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 word 'multiple' implies this is the bulk path versus dida365_complete_task, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance is given. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid project, task ownership) or of what to do for a single task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.