mnemosyne_todo_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full behavioral burden. It discloses that removal archives by default and is restorable, that the batch applies as one save, that operations report their own outcomes, and that a stale id won't sink others. It also covers environmental constraints. Slight gaps like non-recoverable streak side-effects are left to the schema, but overall transparency is strong.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering scope, prerequisite, destructive behavior, atomicity, error isolation, environment prerequisites, and required scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and operation list, with no filler or repetition.

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 complexity (nested ops array with multiple operation types) and lack of output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: task id sourcing, operation semantics, permanent deletion nuance, batch behavior, per-operation outcomes, environment constraints, and auth scope. The note that each operation reports its own outcome compensates for the missing output schema.

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 thoroughly documents each field, including the op enum, permanent default, and field-specific behaviors. The description reinforces some key semantics (e.g., 'pass permanent: true only when...') but doesn't add substantial information beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('CHANGE') with a clear resource ('the human's To-do backlog') and enumerates the exact operations: edit, tick off, move, remove. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like mnemosyne_todo_add by framing this as modifying existing tasks and requiring ids from mnemosyne_todo_list.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call mnemosyne_todo_list first to obtain task ids, which is a critical prerequisite. It also clarifies when to use permanent: true (only when outright deletion is requested) and notes environment-specific daemon requirements. It doesn't explicitly name mnemosyne_todo_add as the alternative for creating new tasks, but the 'CHANGE' framing makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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