Toggle a specific TODO item in a Bear note between complete and incomplete using the note's ID and the item's index number.
Toggle a specific TODO item in a Bear note between complete and incomplete. The item_index is 1-based — use bear_get_todos first to see the list with index numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note ID (uniqueIdentifier) | |
| item_index | Yes | 1-based index of the TODO item to toggle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.26Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that toggling changes state between complete/incomplete and highlights 1-based indexing. Missing edge cases like out-of-bounds index or silent failure.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by essential usage tip. No redundant text.
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 simple toggle tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a key usage hint. It could mention that toggling modifies the note, but remains 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 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by specifying that item_index is 1-based and recommending bear_get_todos for context, going beyond the schema alone.
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 action ('toggle') and resource ('a specific TODO item in a Bear note'), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool bear_get_todos, ensuring differentiation.
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 advises using bear_get_todos first to obtain the item_index, providing clear context for proper usage. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is practical and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.