Sync ToDos

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

The description states that the tool 'creates or updates' and 'only the supplied fields are changed', which gives some behavioral insight. However, it contradicts itself by also describing update behavior for 'Schedule (Legacy) records'. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are present but the description fails to consistently describe the actual behavior.

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 long, rambling, and mixes deprecation, alternative endpoints, update behavior, and endpoint details without clear structure. It is overly verbose for the information conveyed and could be much more concise.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description mentions 'returns the modified object on success', which is helpful. However, the lack of clarity on what type of object (ToDo or Schedule) reduces completeness. Given the confusion, it barely meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 input schema has 100% coverage (2 parameters with descriptions). The description repeats the required parameters ('project_id, updates') and adds that the 'updates' field is for a 'Schedule (Legacy) operation', which provides marginal context. Overall, it adds little beyond the schema.

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 starts by saying 'creates or updates a batch of ToDos' but then diverges into 'update an existing Schedule (Legacy) records' and references a different endpoint. This contradiction between the tool name 'sync_todos' and the mention of Schedule records makes the purpose unclear and misleading.

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 includes a deprecation notice and suggests an alternative endpoint ('instead, use [/rest/v1.0/calendar-items)'), which provides some guidance. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar sync tools (e.g., sync_calendar_items, sync_tasks) or specify conditions for use beyond deprecation.

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