cancel_todo

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that cancellation is reversible, applies to open to-dos, and returns canceled task names. It could mention failure behavior or idempotency, but the key side-effect and reversibility are well disclosed.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core verb and resource appear first, followed by targeted matching guidance, a use case, and return behavior. Every sentence contributes, and there is no repetition of schema fields or annotation data.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no schema-property descriptions, the description covers purpose, reversibility, targeting, and the returned output. Still, it fails to define 'exact' behavior and the conflict for what happens when both the 'todo_id' and 'query' are supplied. These are important gaps for reliable invocation.

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 description names two parameters ('todo_id' and 'query') and says the matching rules are the same as complete_todo, which provides some meaning beyond the bare schema. With 0% schema-property coverage, though, the 'exact' parameter is not explained, and precedent behavior when both target args are supplied is left ambiguous. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark open to-do(s) as canceled'. It also clarifies the semantic distinction from deleting by saying the operation is 'reversible' and should be preferred over deletion. This clearly differentiates it from other to-do state-change 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 description provides practical guidance: use it when a decision is rejected, and prefer it over deleting. It also points to 'same matching rules as complete_todo' for targeting context. However, it does not explicitly cover when not to use it, such as when the task should be completed instead of canceled.

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