Update Todo (Deprecated)

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), return value ('Returns the modified todo on success'), and error behavior (401/403/404). It also warns of the deprecation risk ('may be removed without further notice'), enriching the behavioral context beyond the read/write hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently folds in usage, errors, and API context. However, the deprecation notice appears twice in slightly different forms ('This endpoint has been deprecated' and 'DEPRECATED: Procore has deprecated'), creating minor redundancy. The link formatting is also slightly awkward.

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?

Given the complexity (deprecated endpoint, partial update, no output schema), the description is thorough: it covers deprecation and alternatives, update semantics, id precondition, return behavior, error statuses, required parameters, and API location. Nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning: what 'todo' means in a partial update context, that 'id' must reference an existing record, and explicitly lists required parameters. It stops short of detailing the todo object's nested fields, but the schema already treats it as an arbitrary object.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a ToDo item for a specified Project.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings like create_todo, delete_todo, and show_todo by naming the PATCH operation and the Schedule (Legacy) API endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states the tool is deprecated and tells the agent to use [/rest/v1/calendar-items) or procore_search_endpoints instead. It gives clear instructions for when to use this tool (partial updates, resolved id) and provides precondition guidance ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'), plus common error scenarios.

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