todoist_complete_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Mark as complete') which implies a mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this requires authentication, what happens if the task is already complete, if completion is reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable without any structural fluff.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid task ID), what happens upon completion (e.g., task archiving), or return values. The agent would need to guess about these critical operational aspects.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'taskId' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the task to complete'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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 ('Mark as complete') and resource ('task by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_reopen_task' or 'todoist_update_task' which could also modify task status, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is the right choice.

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 like 'todoist_reopen_task' (for undoing completion) or 'todoist_update_task' (which might also handle status changes). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist and be incomplete) or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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