resolve_todoist_dedup_conflict

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool resolves a conflict. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, what state changes occur, auth requirements, or error handling. This leaves the agent without critical context.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but every word is not optimally used; for example, listing decision values without explaining when each is appropriate reduces efficiency.

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 that there are 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about tool behavior, return values, and how to use parameters. It only covers the basic resolution action, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names. It only mentions the decision options ('import_anyway, skip, or merge'), but fails to explain the role of 'external_task_id', 'merge_with_obligation_id', or 'db_path'. The agent would be forced to infer or guess.

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 identifies the tool's action (resolve) and resource (Todoist dedup conflict), listing the possible decisions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'dedupe_todoist_recurring_duplicates' or 'enqueue_todoist_review_batch', which limits clarity for the agent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after a conflict is flagged, but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to other Todoist-related sibling tools.

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