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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — "Waits for the owner's approval" — telling the agent the to-do is created but not live until approved, which no structured field conveys. It stops short of describing any auth or identity requirement.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler; the creation scope comes first and the non-obvious approval behavior is surfaced second. Every clause carries information.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is a reasonable summary but leaves the agent guessing about the field-level distinctions (name vs description) and about what identifier the created to-do returns. For a mutation tool that will presumably be chained into update_todo, that is a meaningful hole.

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 57%, with name, project_id, and assignee_ids well documented, so the description appropriately sits in the baseline range. However, it adds nothing to disambiguate the undescribed `description` parameter from `name`, nor to explain the priority enum/default or due_time format — gaps that persist at this coverage level.

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+resource ("New to-do") and enumerates the main optional facets (project, due date, priority, assignees), so the agent knows exactly what will be created. It does not differentiate itself from the neighboring update_todo or list_todos beyond the verb, leaving that separation implicit.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as update_todo, or on prerequisites (e.g. needing a project_id from list_projects, which only appears in the schema). "Optionally on a project" hints at scope but is not a usage rule.

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