mcp-todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '수정합니다' (modifies) correctly indicates a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), error conditions, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - just one short sentence. While this is efficient, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 6 parameters and no annotations). Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool executes successfully or fails, doesn't clarify the relationship between parameters (like whether all fields must be provided or if partial updates are allowed), and doesn't address behavioral aspects that annotations would normally cover.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '기존 일정을 수정합니다' (modifies an existing schedule) clearly states the verb ('수정합니다' - modifies) and resource ('일정' - schedule), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'schedule' in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_memo' or explain what differentiates a 'todo' from a 'memo' in this system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing todo ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_memo' or 'create_todo' in the sibling list.

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