todo_update_item

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions optional parameters and valid status values ('needs_action', 'completed'), which adds value. However, it does not describe the effect of omitting optional fields (they remain unchanged), nor does it mention return behavior or side effects. Some important traits are missing.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and optional params. The second clarifies status values. Every word is essential and the key information is front-loaded.

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 covers core purpose and optional params, but omits important contextual details for a simple update tool: what happens if both optional params are omitted, that the item must exist, and that `entity_id` identifies the todo list. An output schema exists but is not referenced. Missing behavioral context for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains `item` as new text and `status` with valid values, but does not describe `entity_id` or `uid` beyond identifying them. Partial compensation; would benefit from clarifying `entity_id` (e.g., which todo list) and that `uid` is the item identifier.

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 it updates a todo item by uid, with optional new text and status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like todo_add_item and todo_remove_item, which handle different operations. The verb 'update' combined with resource 'todo item' provides specific action and scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and function, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use this to modify an existing item; use todo_add_item to create a new one'). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, so the guidance is only indirect.

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