outlook_complete_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether completion is reversible, what happens if the task is already completed, or how the task is located (by id alone or within list_id).

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true economy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin — the meaning and necessity of list_id, and the result of the call, are left entirely unaddressed.

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 carries the burden and fails: it never explains task_id's format or whether list_id is required to disambiguate the task lookup. At best 'a To Do task' weakly implies task_id identifies the target, which is a marginal addition over the schema.

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 ('Mark a To Do task as completed'), which is unambiguous about the effect. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling outlook_update_task, which could plausibly also set completion status, so an agent has no basis for choosing between them from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the task need to exist in a specific list?), and no reference to alternatives such as outlook_update_task. The agent must infer everything about selection from the tool name.

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