todoist_close_task

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 states the action ('mark the task as complete') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible (though 'todoist_reopen_task' hints it might be), what permissions are required, if it affects task history, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second documents the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on behavior, alternatives, prerequisites, and response format. For a tool that modifies task state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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. It adds the parameter 'task_id' with a brief explanation ('ID of the task to close'), which provides basic semantics beyond the schema's title ('Task Id'). However, it doesn't specify the ID format, source, or constraints, leaving gaps. With one parameter and low coverage, this is minimally adequate.

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 clearly states the action ('Close a task') and the resource ('in Todoist'), with the parenthetical clarifying it means marking as complete. It distinguishes from 'todoist_reopen_task' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other task-related tools like 'todoist_delete_task' or 'todoist_update_task' beyond the core verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'todoist_delete_task' (permanent removal) or 'todoist_update_task' (modifying without closing). It also lacks prerequisites such as needing an existing task ID or context about task states. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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