Mark All Todos Done

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

Annotations indicate a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) action. The description adds the behavioral context that it acts on all pending items for the authenticated user, which is sufficient for a straightforward 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without superfluous words. Every part is justified.

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?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description covers the necessary information: what it does (mark done), scope (all pending, current user). It is adequate but could mention irreversibility or confirmation requirements.

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 input schema has no parameters and is fully covered (100%). With zero parameters, the description naturally adds no parameter details, but this is acceptable; the baseline for 0 parameters is 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 uses a specific verb 'mark' and clearly identifies the resource 'all pending to-do items' and the scope 'current authenticated user'. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling gitlab_mark_todo_done, which targets a single todo.

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 implies bulk clearing of all todos but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the singular variant. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is provided, relying on the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

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