新建待办

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that recurring todos auto-generate a next instance after completion, but it omits permission requirements, response behavior, validation/defaults, and other side effects for a 13-parameter 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 description is two short sentences with zero waste and is front-loaded with the core action. The recurrence behavior is stated immediately after the primary purpose.

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?

For a complex 13-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It covers recurrence but not required fields, defaults, validation, return values, or interaction with siblings.

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 only 46%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning for repeat and leaves most parameters, including required title and fields like order, linkId, category, linkType, projectId, and description, unexplained.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "新增待办" (add a todo). It is distinguishable from siblings like todo.update/todo.delete/todo.list by the creation verb, but it does not explicitly call out sibling boundaries.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use todo.create versus todo.update or other sibling tools. The recurrence note explains a side effect, not when this tool should be selected.

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