close_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'close tasks' which implies a mutation (changing task status), but doesn't explain what 'close' means operationally (e.g., marks as complete vs archives), whether it's reversible (hinting at 'reopen_tasks' sibling), or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly address core functionality and parameter identification. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff, making it efficiently front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'close' means in Todoist context, whether multiple tasks can be closed, what happens on success/failure, or how this differs from deletion. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.

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 must compensate. It explains that either 'task_id' or 'task_name' can identify targets, which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify the 'items' array structure, whether both fields can be used together, or how name matching works, leaving some parameter semantics unclear.

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 clearly states the action ('close tasks') and target system ('Todoist'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'reopen_tasks' or other task-related tools, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique role in the toolset.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tasks must exist), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'delete_tasks' or 'reopen_tasks', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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