Update a Microsoft To Do step by renaming it or toggling its completion status using list, task, and step identifiers.
Rename a step or tick/untick it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | List display name (case-insensitive) or list id | |
| text | No | ||
| checked | No | ||
| step_id | Yes | Step id from get_task | |
| task_id | Yes | Task id from list_tasks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as what happens when text or checked is null, or what side effects occur. It is consistent with annotations, so there is no contradiction.
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 short sentence with no filler; the operations are front-loaded. It is concise and skimmable, though it could include more guidance without becoming verbose.
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 simple two-operation update tool, the description plus schema/annotations covers the basics. Gaps remain: it does not state that text and checked may be null/no-op, and it gives no guidance on choosing between update_step and the sibling update/add/delete tools.
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 coverage is 60%; list, step_id, and task_id are described in the schema. The description adds meaning to the two undocumented params by mapping 'Rename' to text and 'tick/untick' to checked, but it does not clarify null defaults or the effect of omitting both optional fields.
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 names a specific resource ('a step') and two precise actions: 'Rename' and 'tick/untick'. This clearly distinguishes update_step from add_step/delete_step and from update_task, even without explicitly naming sibling tools.
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 intended use is implied: call this when a step's text or checked state needs to change. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, no exclusions, and no named alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.