anon_post_todos_todo_id_updates

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

Annotations already flag non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world and destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the entry is immutable (cannot be edited or deleted), it requires the same permissions as the complete endpoint, and the project is inferred from the API key rather than supplied.

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 text is compact and front-loads the action and its key constraint, followed by the endpoint and project-id note. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing HTTP path and projectId note are somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 mutation tool with nested body objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is appended, immutability, permission requirements, the note/files constraint, and endpoint scoping. Only per-parameter detail and any response expectations remain unaddressed.

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 top-level schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and partially compensates by stating the cross-field rule ('note and attachment at least one non-empty') and by confirming no projectId is needed (leaving only todoId in the path). However, it does not explain the body/path parameters individually beyond that.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — appending a progress entry to a todo — and clarifies it is append-only (cannot be edited/deleted), which separates it from anon_patch_todos_todo_id. It also references the complete endpoint for permission parity, though it does not name the sibling tools directly.

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?

Usage is mostly implied: 'permissions same as complete endpoint' and 'project is auto-determined, no need to pass projectId' give operational context, and the note/files constraint is a real precondition. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over patch_todos_todo_id or complete.

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