Mark a Boardroom todo done

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds concrete side-effect detail: setting status='done', stamping completed_at, and posting a 'todo-completed' Boardroom event. That event side effect is valuable context not present in structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the side-effect details. Efficient with little waste, though the terse 'agent_id required' fragment is slightly abrupt.

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 2-param mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, and the event emission. Nothing critical is missing beyond richer per-parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explicitly notes agent_id is required and implicitly identifies todo_id ('a todo'), but explains neither the semantics of agent_id nor its role, leaving a gap at 0% coverage.

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 and resource: 'Shortcut for marking a todo as done.' This clearly distinguishes it from list/read siblings. It implies differentiation from update_todo via 'shortcut' but doesn't explicitly name it, so it falls just short of 5.

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 'shortcut' hints that this is a convenience wrapper versus a general update, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over update_todo or when not to. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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