update-todo-task

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

Annotations already declare write and destructive behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds context about which properties can be modified and the source of required IDs, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention confirm gating (though that is in the parameter schema) or any side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a tight two-sentence structure: first the core purpose, then a concise tip with concrete use cases and dependencies. There is no unnecessary detail, and the most critical information (what it updates and how to find the IDs) is front-loaded. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool with a large nested schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, specific property changes, and prerequisite IDs. The schema covers field-level details, and annotations cover the safety profile. It does not mention partial update semantics or response behavior, but these are either inferable or not critical for correct invocation, so the description is reasonably complete.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by demonstrating how to use the body parameter (e.g., { status: 'completed' }) and explaining that todoTaskListId and todoTaskId come from specific list operations. These examples clarify the meaning of the body structure and ID parameters beyond the schema's generic property descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'todoTask object,' and provides concrete examples of common operations (mark complete, reopen, rename, change due date, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update-todo-task-list, which targets a different resource, and from create/delete operations. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios (e.g., 'Use this to mark a to-do item complete or done') and specifies the required IDs from list-todo-task-lists and list-todo-tasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the examples and dependencies strongly imply this is the tool for modifying an existing task. This is strong guidance, though a brief note about alternatives would make it a 5.

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