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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) but adds no behavioral context beyond them. It does not clarify the key question for a 7-parameter update tool with only one required parameter: whether omitted fields are preserved (partial update) or cleared. The destructiveHint risk of overwriting existing values is left undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and affected fields first and a concrete example trailing. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and destructive semantics, the definition should explain partial-update behavior and the effect of 'complete'. The description covers the field surface but leaves the most consequential behavior unstated.

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 low (43%), so the description should compensate, but it only lists field names already present in the schema and omits due_time entirely. It adds no semantics for priority levels, valid status transitions, or date/time format expectations beyond the schema's own inline notes.

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 names a specific verb ('Change') and resource (a to-do) and enumerates the mutable fields, distinguishing it from create_todo/get_todo/list_todos by implication. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state that it modifies existing records only, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'e.g. mark it complete' hints at the most common invocation, which is useful context for usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus create_todo or delete_change_order, and no prerequisites (e.g. that todo_id must come from list_todos) are stated in the description.

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