todo_complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether the call is idempotent on an already-completed task, whether it requires write permissions, whether it mutates only the status or also timestamps, or what is returned. 'Mark completed' implies mutation but discloses no behavioral traits beyond that.

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 words with zero waste and the verb front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency given two undocumented required params and no annotations.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. An agent could call it, but has no information on permissions, idempotency, failure modes, or return value.

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% for two required parameters. The description says nothing about list_id or task_id — not whether list_id must be the owning list of the task, nor the identifier format — leaving both params documented only by their bare titles.

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 (mark completed) and resource (task), so the operation itself is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as todo_update_task or planner_complete_task, which could plausibly also flip completion state.

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 indication of when to use this versus todo_update_task or the planner equivalents. The agent must infer that this is the dedicated completion path rather than a generic status update.

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