todo_update_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only notes the action is an 'actual update' and mentions a prerequisite, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, failure modes, or postconditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the core action and the key prerequisite (preview and adjudication). No redundant words, and it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 has 7 parameters, is a write operation, and has no annotations or schema descriptions, the description is far too minimal. It omits parameter usage, return value semantics, and contextual guidance about the adjudication process, making it incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter or explain what fields can be updated. The schema lists 7 parameters with names and types, but the description adds no semantic meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs an actual update ('实际更新事项') and explicitly distinguishes it from preview tools by requiring a prior preview and adjudication. The verb and resource are specific enough to identify the action.

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 explicitly says '需先 preview 且通过裁决' (must first preview and pass adjudication), which tells the agent when this tool should be used versus alternatives like todo_update_preview. It also implies it is the apply step in a two-phase update flow.

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