mark_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavior beyond the name — handling recurring/echo tasks and stopping tracking — which is useful context for a state-changing tool. However, it omits reversibility, permission needs, and what happens to subtasks or recurrence chains.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical efficiently packs the two key behavioral traits without bloating the definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps around irreversibility and side effects on dependent items, leaving it only minimally complete.

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% for the single item_id parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'a task or project' implies item_id accepts either entity type, which is real added meaning, but it doesn't specify ID format or restrictions.

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 ('Mark done') and resource ('a task or project'), with a clear side effect noted. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_task, which could plausibly also change status, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over update_task or update_subtasks, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name, which is exactly the kind of inference a good definition should remove.

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