anon_post_todos_template_import

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent, but the description adds genuine operational context beyond them: the todo:manage permission gate, batch creation semantics, no-assignee outcome, and implicit project scoping. It stops short of describing what happens to pre-existing todos on re-import, which matters for a non-idempotent, destructive operation.

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?

Four tight sentences with the action and permission front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and the project-scoping clarification. No filler, every sentence carries information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent import with no output schema, the description covers permission, scope and generation behavior adequately. The remaining gap is the result/effect on existing todos, but the destructive annotation already signals mutation.

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 explains that date becomes the new anchor and that template drives generation, adding conceptual meaning; it also documents a non-parameter (projectId) that the caller might otherwise supply. With only a single body parameter the schema cannot carry this, so the description compensates well.

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 precise verb+resource (导入待办模板 / import todo template) and adds the distinguishing behavior: batch-generates todos anchored on date, with no assignee. This clearly separates it from the sibling anon_get_todos_template_export and from anon_post_todos.

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?

Gives the required permission (todo:manage) and clarifies that projectId is not needed because the project is derived from the API key, which preempts a likely misuse. It does not explicitly frame when to prefer the export sibling or when not to use this tool.

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