toggle_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly labels this a WRITE OPERATION and names the required step write scope, plus discloses the non-obvious toggle behavior when finished is omitted. It does not cover idempotency or what the response contains, but an output schema exists to cover returns.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The write-operation warning is front-loaded and the flag semantics follow immediately, so the most decision-relevant information lands first.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the mutation, the auth scope, and the toggle semantics, but leaves 'entity_type' and the id/step_id relationship undefined, and gives no disambiguation against the adjacent step-mutation siblings.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the crux parameter 'finished' (1=complete, 0=incomplete, omitted=flip), but says nothing about 'entity_type' (an unconstrained required string with no enum) or the distinction between 'id' and 'step_id'.

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 a step as complete or incomplete'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'update_step', which plausibly could also change completion state, so an agent must still guess which to pick.

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 explains the semantics of the finished flag including the omitted case (server flips current state), which is real usage guidance. But it gives no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use framing against 'update_step' or 'add_step', and no prerequisites beyond the scope note.

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