ticktick_complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses that the local record is written as a side effect, that content becomes immutable afterwards, that recurring completions are never locally recorded and land in the unprocessed queue under a different id, and gives the not_found/error shapes. The outcome enumeration (completed, completed_recurring, uncertain, completion_recorded) is valuable but partly duplicates the declared output schema, so this is not a clean 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and the key routing sentence, which is good, but the Returns block runs long and largely re-describes an output schema that already exists, and the opening paragraph about the unprocessed queue is dense enough to need a second read. The Limitations and Example sections earn their space; the return-value prose does not fully.

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?

Covers the mutation's side effects, the recurring-task edge case, the failure shapes, the ordering constraint on content edits, and a usage example — everything an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret a surprising result. An output schema is present, so the extra return detail is redundant rather than missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does by documenting task_id as "the task's full ID" and supplying a concrete example value, which signals the expected format. It could go further by explicitly contrasting the full task id with the series instance id that the recurring-task caveat mentions, but the meaning added is real rather than a restatement of 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 plus resource ("Mark a task as completed") in the first line and immediately draws the boundary against two named siblings, ticktick_get_unprocessed_completions and ticktick_mark_completion_processed, explaining why this tool does not feed that queue. An agent can distinguish it from the other completion-related tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says what NOT to do ("There is no need to call ticktick_mark_completion_processed afterwards", "Do not mark the series id processed by hand") and names the alternative that handles the other case (the unprocessed queue is for completions made elsewhere). It also gives an ordering prerequisite: write resolution notes BEFORE calling, since content becomes immutable.

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