todo_update_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation does not write to the database, which is the most critical side-effect information. It does not elaborate on what the preview shows (e.g., diff, errors), but for a dry-run this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and key behavior without any padding. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description gives the essential preview/no-write info and there is an output schema, so return structure is covered. However, given 7 parameters and the presence of many sibling tools, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., item must exist) or typical usage flow with todo_update_apply. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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%, yet the description provides no context for the parameters. While property names are self-explanatory, the description does not explain how they are used in the preview or whether they represent the fields to be changed. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 previews the impact of updating a todo item, explicitly noting it is a dry-run with no database write. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like todo_update_apply, which actually performs the update.

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 dry-run indicator implies this should be used to assess changes before applying them, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier.

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