ticktick_mark_completion_processed

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the task will no longer appear in future calls to the companion tool, and it documents all return statuses (ok, already_processed, error). It also warns about ambiguous project names being an error, adding important behavioral detail.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Usage Guide sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each section adds value; the example is illustrative without being redundant.

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 purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, return values, and behavioral side effects. The output schema exists but the description already explains the return format, and it fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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's detailed parameter documentation is essential. It explains each parameter including project_id resolution rules (case-insensitive, trimmed, 'Inbox' special case, duplicate name error), and clarifies optional fields like title and completed_time.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Records that a domain agent has processed a completed task.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tool ticktick_complete_task by noting it should be called after reviewing tasks from ticktick_get_unprocessed_completions.

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 instructs to call 'after reviewing each task returned by ticktick_get_unprocessed_completions' and includes a usage guide with 'Call once per task after finishing your handling of it.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and references the relevant sibling tool.

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