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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantive context beyond that by explaining Buildium's PUT replaces the whole record, so the tool reads the current task first and only mutates fields passed. This directly clarifies partial-update semantics and explains why the hint is set. It does not cover auth requirements, failure modes, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentences cover the operation and its read-modify-write behavior, with the endpoint appended as a compact implementation note. Every element earns its place, though the raw endpoint string is somewhat developer-oriented padding for an agent-facing description.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description supplies the critical missing piece: that this is a read-then-write partial update rather than a blind overwrite. Remaining gaps (permission needs, invalid-id behavior, whether 'message' is a durable note) are minor.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including the status/priority enums. The description restates a subset of field names (status, priority, assignee, due date, title, category, message) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (to-do task), then enumerates the mutable fields so the agent knows exactly what can change. The endpoint reference (GET then PUT /v1/tasks/todorequests/{toDoTaskId}) pins it unambiguously against 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 field list implies when the tool applies (changing status, priority, assignee, etc.), and one example ('mark Completed') is given, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling routing such as 'use buildium_update_work_order for work orders'. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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