todo_update

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: completed todos are retained as history rather than deleted, and status transitions are a core supported action. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action, then adds one important behavioral note. Both sentences earn their place, though the lack of parameter context limits its overall utility.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, a two-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use all fields correctly. It does not clarify partial update behavior, required id semantics, date format, or response details.

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 description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It adds some semantics for the status parameter by naming allowed transitions, but it does not explain id, title, tags, due_at, priority, or description, and it omits that status can also be set to open.

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 tool's function: updating a persistent todo with explicit status transitions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like todo_add and todo_list by focusing on updating existing todos and on retention behavior.

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 this tool is for modifying an existing persistent todo, including status changes, rather than creating or listing todos. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the usage boundary somewhat inferred.

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