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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and it does so well: it discloses that Buildium's PUT replaces the whole record, that the tool therefore reads the task first and merges, and names the actual endpoints (GET then PUT /v1/tasks/todorequests/{toDoTaskId}). It omits permissions/auth requirements and error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and affected fields, then a single high-value sentence on the read-then-PUT semantics, then the concrete endpoint path. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-param mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers purpose, merge semantics, and endpoint. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the return payload or failure modes, which an agent might want for a write operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that all fields except todo_task_id are optional and that unspecified fields are preserved by the read-modify-write behavior, which is the key semantic an agent needs when choosing which optional params to send.

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 and resource ('Update a to-do task') and enumerates exactly which fields can be changed (status, priority, assignee, due date, title, category, plus an optional message). This is unambiguous against siblings like buildium_create_todo_task and buildium_update_work_order.

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 makes clear this operates on an existing task identified by todo_task_id and that only passed fields are modified, which tells the agent how to invoke it. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g. vs. create or vs. update_work_order), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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