anon_patch_todos_todo_id

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the required permission scope and the specific rule that setting status=open clears completion information — a non-obvious side effect an agent must know.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with the action, then permission, then the key field caveat. The inclusion of the raw endpoint path is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the description adds permission and one field's destructive side effect, but with 0% param coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, a calling agent still lacks field-level semantics needed to invoke the body correctly.

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 0% and the body nests eight fields (note, dueAt, title, nodeAt, status, category, remindAt, assigneeIds). The description only says all fields are optional and explains status, leaving the meaning/format of the other seven fields undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('更新待办' / update todo) and the HTTP method (PATCH /api/projects/{id}/todos/{todoId}), clearly marking it as the todo-mutation operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like anon_post_todos or anon_delete_todos_todo_id, though it never explicitly names alternatives.

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?

Adds practical context: requires todo:manage permission and clarifies that projectId is auto-determined from the API key, so it should not be passed. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this generic PATCH versus dedicated siblings like anon_post_todos_todo_id_complete or anon_post_todos_todo_id_updates.

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