Reschedule multiple todos to the same date/time in one call. Provide todo IDs and a new schedule to update them all at once.
Reschedule multiple todos to the same date/time in one call.
Args: todo_ids: List of todo UUIDs to reschedule. when: New schedule — today, tomorrow, evening, anytime, someday, or YYYY-MM-DD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| when | Yes | ||
| todo_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating operation and lists accepted schedule values, but it does not state whether existing schedules are overwritten, whether the operation is atomic, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then provides a concise parameter breakdown. There is no filler or redundant content; every sentence contributes essential information.
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?
The description is adequate for invoking the tool: both required parameters are explained and the supported values are enumerated. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of behavioral details about side effects, return value, and failure behavior leaves it only minimally complete for an agent operating autonomously.
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 0%, so the prose must fully explain the parameters. The description does this well: it defines todo_ids as UUIDs and gives the complete accepted set for when, including natural-language options and the YYYY-MM-DD format. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reschedule multiple todos to the same date/time in one call.' It clearly describes the batch nature and the shared-target constraint, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like bulk_complete or batch_update by the unique rescheduling action.
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 implies the use case: rescheduling several todos at once to a common schedule. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or situations where a different sibling tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.