better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive, and non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that toggling is between two states (complete/incomplete) and emphasizes the dependency on bear_get_todos for proper usage, which helps the agent understand behavioral constraints.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys necessary context without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (state-changing operation with two parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, and schema fully describes inputs. The description effectively explains the toggle behavior and prerequisite step. However, without an output schema, it doesn't clarify what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or updated state), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantics by reinforcing that item_index is '1-based' and should come from bear_get_todos, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('toggle'), resource ('TODO item in a Bear note'), and scope ('between complete and incomplete'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bear_get_todos by focusing on modification rather than retrieval, and from bear_edit_note by targeting TODO items specifically.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after using bear_get_todos to obtain index numbers. It implies when-not-to-use by specifying the need for a 1-based index from that sibling tool, though it doesn't name alternatives for similar operations.

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