cancel_todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states reversibility and return of canceled task names, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or behavior on already canceled todos. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information, though could be slightly more structured with headings or lists.

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?

Covers main action, targeting, and return value. Lacks details on error handling or what happens if no matching todo. Output schema exists but is not referenced. Adequate for a simple tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains todo_id and query targeting and references matching rules from a sibling, but does not describe the 'exact' parameter. Partial compensation.

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 tool marks open todos as canceled and distinguishes it from deletion by noting it's reversible. It specifies targeting by todo_id or query, making the purpose precise and differentiating it from siblings like update_todo.

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 a usage example ('rejected purchase decision') and advises preferring this over deletion, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like complete_todo or when to use query vs todo_id. Guidance is present but limited.

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