dedupe_todoist_recurring_duplicates

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is cancellative (cancel future instances), uses a conservative subset match, and is reversible (status -> canceled). This is good transparency for a tool without annotations, though it does not detail every side effect (e.g., does not affect past instances).

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 relatively concise, using two sentences and a fragment to convey the core purpose, example, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the key action. There is minimal redundancy, though the fragment could be integrated into a single sentence. It earns its place with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (deduplication with cancellation of future instances) and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks important context. It does not specify the role of 'as_of_date' (likely a cutoff for future instances), what 'future instances' means, or how duplicates are identified (besides 'conservative subset match'). It also does not reference related sibling tools for further context.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the parameters 'as_of_date' or 'db_path'. The agent has no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them, which is critical for a tool with two parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: cancel future instances of a Todoist-imported obligation that duplicates a proper recurring obligation. It provides a concrete example with costs, and distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_todoist_dedup_conflict by clearly stating the action (cancel) and the condition (duplicate).

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 implies usage (when a duplicate is found) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions 'conservative subset match' which provides some guidance, but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' and 'when-not-to-use' directives. Sibling tools like resolve_todoist_dedup_conflict suggest a related but different action, but no comparative guidance is given.

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