Tick the steps you did

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it discloses all-or-nothing validation ('one unknown name and nothing is ticked'), duplicate-name resolution ('ticks the next one still open'), and a permission gate where ticks on tasks the agent didn't file stay 'said done' pending the person's confirmation. It omits consequence/reversibility detail and any response shape, which keeps it off a 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?

The core action is front-loaded, which is right, but the remainder is dense em-dash prose with elliptical constructions ('said done, until they take your word') that cost the reader more than the content warrants. Several clauses could be split into short declaratives without losing meaning.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers atomicity, duplicates, permission gating, and the relationship to `say_done`. What's missing is what the call returns and whether re-ticking an already-ticked step is a no-op.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining semantics the schema cannot: one bad name voids the whole call, and a name shared by two steps resolves to the next open one. The `read`-text formatting rule is essentially restated from the schema, so it's not pure added value.

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 steps of a task done, naming each by the text `read` shows. It distinguishes itself from `say_done` ('the task stays open until `say_done`'), but never names the obvious sibling `untick` as the inverse operation, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance — 'when you did them yourself — the moment you did, not at the end' — which is real when-to-use context an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of stating when NOT to tick or pointing at `untick` for corrections.

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