enqueue_todoist_review_batch

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotency (one batch per day), the dry_run effect, and that no Todoist write ever occurs. It also notes the outbox pattern. However, it does not describe failure modes, error handling, or any side effects beyond the outbox recording.

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 ('Record the day's review batch'), followed by essential detail in three more sentences. At ~60 words, it is concise and every sentence adds value. Slight room to tighten the dry_run explanation.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values and error conditions. It does not. Two parameters (options, db_path) are undocumented, and the tool's effect on the outbox is vague. The agent lacks enough context to handle all inputs or interpret results.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%. The description explains 'dry_run' and implicitly refers to 'as_of_date' via 'one batch per day', but provides no detail for 'options' or 'db_path'. 'options' is an open object and 'db_path' is unexplained, leaving two parameters semantically opaque.

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 records a review batch in the durable action outbox, is idempotent, and performs no live write. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'nothing is ever sent to Todoist here', which contrasts with tools like sync_todoist that actually send data.

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 for enqueuing without sending, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not directly compare with sibling tools like 'preview_todoist_review_batch' or 'execute_action_outbox'. The dry_run parameter is explained, but no alternatives are named.

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