todo_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the resulting state (status=2), but says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, permission requirements, or behavior on an already-completed or invalid uuid for what is a write operation.

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, zero filler, with the action and state transition front-loaded before the conditional uuid hint. 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 one-parameter status-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the resulting status, and how to obtain the uuid. It falls short only on mutation-side details (already-done behavior, failure modes) that an agent would ideally know.

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 100% with a single required uuid parameter already documented as 'Todo uuid'. The description adds a workflow hint (fetch via todo_list) but no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 done') on a specific resource (a HoldOn todo), and the parenthetical 'status=2' pins down the exact state transition. This clearly separates it from siblings like todo_update (generic edit) and todo_create.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite for the ambiguous case: 'Call todo_list first if uuid is unknown.' It does not, however, say when to prefer this over todo_update for closing out a todo, so the alternative-routing is only partially covered.

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