Complete Things 3 Todo

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

Annotations already declare the tool is idempotent and not destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the action, such as side effects or permissions.

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: two sentences for the action and one for Args, plus a Returns note. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the simple action and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It includes the return shape {success, id, name}, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Missing details like what 'success' indicates or the state change after completion are minor.

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%, and the description's parameter info ('The unique ID of the todo to complete (required)') largely mirrors the schema. It adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Mark as complete' with clear resource 'todo in Things 3'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like things3_create_todo, things3_update_todo, and things3_delete_todo.

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 implies use when a todo needs to be marked complete, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or suggest alternatives (e.g., using update_todo for partial completion). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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