monica_tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operationally important detail beyond that: delete requires confirm: true, and list distinguishes open vs done tasks via the done flag. It still omits what update does to unspecified fields or any return-shape information.

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-loads the resource definition, then bullet-lists each action with its key flag. Extremely compact with no redundant sentences.

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 8-parameter multi-action CRUD tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential action semantics and the critical confirm guard. It leaves two parameters (limit, description) undocumented and does not describe return values, but for a predictable CRUD surface this is largely adequate.

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 only 25% (just id and action documented), and the action enum explicitly defers per-action field requirements to the tool description. The description partially compensates by mapping actions to done/confirm/contact/id/title, but never mentions limit or description, nor states required fields per action.

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 resource ('To-dos tied to a contact') and enumerates the four actions (list/create/update/delete) with a concrete example, so an agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling monica_reminders, which is a plausible source of confusion for a task-like tool.

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?

Gives clear per-action context: list for open tasks (or done ones with done: true), a contact's or everyone's; create for a contact; update to change or toggle done; delete with confirm: true. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over sibling tools such as monica_reminders.

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