Create Todo

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the created object (HTTP 201) and mentions required parameters, but no additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'Schedule (Legacy) records' appears twice) and could be more concise. It does include structure with separate sentences for purpose, deprecation, and endpoint info.

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 simple create tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core purpose, deprecation, endpoint, and success response. However, the 'todo' object parameter lacks structural detail.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only lists required parameters (already in schema) without adding extra meaning or format details.

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 states the tool creates a ToDo Item for a specified Project, but also mentions it creates Schedule (Legacy) records, causing slight confusion. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting deprecation and an alternative endpoint.

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?

Explicitly says the tool is deprecated and advises using /rest/v1/calendar-items instead, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and an alternative.

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