Mark All Todos Done

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

Annotations already show destructiveHint true, but the description adds the irreversible nature and mentions the need for per-item restore_todo calls. It also states it returns the list of updated todos. No contradictions.

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 concise (3 short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds distinct value: action, scoping, irreversibility, and return. No wasted words.

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 bulk action tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the core behavior, scoping, irreversibility, and return value. It does not mention pagination or limits, which are not expected for a marking action.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by grouping the first 6 parameters as 'Optional scoping args' and explaining their purpose, going beyond just restating schema.

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') and resource ('pending to-do items'), and clearly states the scope ('for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mark_todo_done and restore_todo by implying bulk operation and mentioning irreversibility without per-item restore.

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 explicitly states that with no arguments it marks all pending todos, and optional scoping args narrow selection. It warns about irreversibility. However, it does not explicitly contrast with mark_todo_done for individual marking, which would improve guidance.

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