import_todoist_obligations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency, behavior for completed/deleted/recurring-like tasks, and the data flow. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and side effects beyond DB changes, but covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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 a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. It efficiently covers multiple edge cases without unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but overall concise and informative.

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?

Input behavior is well-described, but the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not mention return values or error states. For a mutation tool with complex edge cases, this omission reduces completeness. Otherwise, it covers input behavior thoroughly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'tasks' parameter (what it should contain, default behavior). However, 'options' and 'db_path' are left undocumented. Partial addition of meaning, but incomplete for all parameters.

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: importing Todoist tasks as canonical one-off obligations. It specifies the source (cashflow-candidate tasks), distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing one-off vs. recurring, and explains idempotency and edge cases.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for importing one-off obligations from Todoist) and implies limitations (local DB as source of truth, only for one-off). It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the behavioral details offer sufficient guidance.

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