update_todo_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It warns that raw iCal formatting is required and that only complete pre-formatted data should be used, which implies wholesale replacement of the VTODO. However, it does not disclose consequences like what happens to fields omitted from the raw data, or how the ETag conflict failure surfaces at runtime.

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?

Three sentences, every one earning its place: the ADVANCED warning, the manual-formatting requirement, the explicit sibling routing, and the precise conditions for invocation. No fluff, no repetition of schema content.

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 complex raw-data mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to call it safely: what it does, when to avoid it, and when it's the right choice. The one gap is return-value/conflict behavior, but the schema already flags ETag conflict detection, and the explicit 'update_todo for simple cases' warning mitigates the main misuse risk.

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 fully documents all three parameters (todo_url, todo_etag with conflict-detection purpose, updated_ical_data). The description adds only loose alignment between 'complete pre-formatted VTODO data' and the updated_ical_data parameter, which is helpful but not necessary given the schema already describes it.

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 and resource ('Update todo with raw VTODO iCal data') and immediately distinguishes itself from update_todo, which the agent can see is a sibling. The 'ADVANCED' prefix also sets clear expectations that this is the low-level variant of a simple operation.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative: 'use update_todo instead for simple field updates (summary, description, status)', and gives the exact conditions for choosing this tool: 'only use this if you have complete pre-formatted VTODO data or need to update advanced iCal properties.' This is textbook when/when-not guidance, leaving nothing to inference.

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