dingtalk_todo_task_done

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 that the tool marks tasks as completed or not completed, which is a mutation, but it does not specify permissions, side effects, behavior on non-existent tasks, or what happens if the 'done' parameter is omitted. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence: '将待办任务标记为已完成或未完成'. Every word contributes to the core purpose, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description states the core action. However, without annotations, it leaves gaps: no usage context, no behavioral details (e.g., what constitutes success or failure), and no clarification of the optional 'done' parameter. It is minimally sufficient but not 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it essentially repeats the concept of 'done' without referencing parameter names or additional semantics. The schema already fully describes task_id and done, so the description adds no extra value.

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?

Description clearly states '将待办任务标记为已完成或未完成' — marking a todo task as completed or not completed. This identifies the specific verb (mark) and resource (todo task), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update (which would modify other fields) and delete.

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 usage: it is for setting the done status of a todo task. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dingtalk_todo_task_update, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear but not differentiated from update.

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