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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful clarification that the action is reversible and marks rather than deletes the item. It also documents the semantics of done=false, which the annotations do not express. Minor gap: it says nothing about permissions, the acting person/workspace effects, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences with the trigger front-loaded, followed by the id source and the reversibility guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated wastefully.

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 single-flag mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers trigger, parameter source and risk profile adequately. It could add what the response contains (e.g., the item's new state) or permission requirements, but those are modest omissions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters, including the person and project scoping parameters, are already documented in the schema. The description restates the id provenance and the done:false behavior without adding syntax or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (mark a to-do done / reopen it) and its trigger condition is stated in the first sentence. It is clearly separable from the siblings connections_todo_add, connections_todo_update and connections_todo_delete, including the explicit contrast that the item is 'never deleted'.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers ('member says a to-do is done, finished, completed, handled - or should be reopened') plus the inverse case (reopen). It also routes the agent to the correct source of the required id (connections_todo_list), so no inference about prerequisites is needed.

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