outlook_complete_task

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

The annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds no detail about side effects (e.g., whether completion is reversible, affects recurrence, or requires specific permissions). It does not contradict annotations, but transparency is minimal.

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 concise sentence without redundancy, but it is too brief to cover essential information, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 lack of output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it still omits practical context such as parameter meanings, expected prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), or any side effects. Overall, it is insufficient for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 schema has two parameters (list_id and task_id) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no explanation. The agent receives no semantic information about what these parameters represent or how they relate to the operation.

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 verb 'Mark' and the object 'a To Do task as completed', which uniquely identifies the action. It is distinct from siblings like delete, update, or create tasks, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without contextual cues such as 'when a task is finished' or 'to update task status'.

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