delete_todo

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

With no annotations, the description must carry side-effect information. It discloses the auth/ownership boundary ('authenticated user's') and the targeted scope ('by ID'), but it does not state that deletion is permanent/irreversible or describe not-found/authorization error behavior.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes scope or targeting information.

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 one-parameter delete operation, the core invocation is captured: target and authorization scope. Missing irreversibility/error/return details are real gaps, especially with no annotations and no output schema, but the tool's complexity is low enough that 3 reflects an adequate-but-minimal definition.

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%, and the description only partially compensates: 'by ID' maps todo_id to the target todo's identifier, and 'authenticated user's' hints that the ID must reference the caller's own todo. It does not explain how to obtain the ID or any format constraints beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('one authenticated user's todo') with the targeting method ('by ID'). Among the sibling tools, this is the only deletion tool, and the description makes that role unambiguous.

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?

Implies when to use it: when a single todo of the currently authenticated user needs to be removed by ID. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like complete_todo or update_todo, but the auth/ownership scope provides some selection context.

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