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

Discloses non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: creates one open to-do, selects workspace vs personal based on connection binding, requires the reply to name which space, and specifies title/body formatting. This substantially supplements annotations that only carry generic false hints.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: trigger conditions first, then behavior, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries operational value, and the examples are illustrative rather than redundant.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers when to use it, what it creates, where it places the to-do, how to format the title/body, and which alternative to use instead. The instruction to say the placement back to the member covers the key response detail.

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 input schema already describes all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the title/body split and the scope default but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('add/save/note or remember a to-do') against a specific resource (the member's Connections list), with trigger-phrase examples. It clearly distinguishes itself from post_agent_todos_add and is unambiguous against siblings like connections_todo_done and connections_todo_list.

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?

Opens by telling the agent exactly when to use it: when the member asks to add, save, note, or remember a to-do/reminder/follow-up, including concrete phrases. It explicitly says not to use it for the assistant's own intended work and names post_agent_todos_add as the alternative.

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