create_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly states the tool creates a new todo/task, which is a write operation. However, it does not disclose any side effects beyond creation (e.g., whether it modifies other resources or returns a confirmation). For a create operation, the primary behavior is obvious, but the absence of any caveats or prerequisites (like needing to specify a calendar_url) is a minor gap. The schema covers required fields, but the description could have mentioned that a calendar_url is essential.

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 composed of two clear, concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second clarifies the use case without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly assess relevance. No wasted words.

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 create tool with 7 parameters all documented in the schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide to use it. It mentions the optional fields and the use case. The only minor omission is explicit mention of the required fields (calendar_url and summary), but these are clearly marked in the schema. The description is adequate for guiding invocation without unnecessary verbosity.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by pointing out the optional nature of 'due date, priority, and status', which reiterates the schema. However, it does not add any deeper context or meaning beyond what the schema already states (e.g., how priority mapping works or date format specifics). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new todo/task in a calendar'. It lists the typical use cases (task, todo item, reminder) and mentions optional fields (due date, priority, status). This distinguishes it from related tools like create_event (which handles calendar events) and update_todo (which modifies existing todos).

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 the tool: 'Use this when user wants to add a task, todo item, or reminder'. This gives a clear trigger condition. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., create_event for non-todo items) makes the distinction clear enough. Slight deduction for not explicitly naming negative cases.

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