todo_create

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the description carries a lower burden. It adds downstream behavioral context — where the slug renders and that truncation happens in the dashboard — plus 'Returns a slim receipt'. It does not state authorization requirements or any side effects beyond rendering.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then parameter behavior, then the return. No filler. Slightly over-weighed toward the slug's rendering surface relative to the remaining six parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value needn't be explained ('slim receipt' suffices), and annotations cover safety. However, with 7 parameters and sub-50% schema coverage, the description leaves tags, priority, and title semantics to inference, which is thin for a creation tool with an ordering feature.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate. It explains the slug rendering contract and blocked_by ordering semantics, but body, tags, title, and priority receive no description-level explanation, and the slug/blocked_by detail largely duplicates what the schema already documents.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Create a project-scoped todo.' This clearly distinguishes creation from the sibling mutation tools (todo_update, todo_archive, todo_complete). It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Gives conditional usage for two parameters: when to pass a slug (optional, rendering effect) and when to pass project_id ('Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for another project by name; otherwise stay in the current scope'). This is real guidance, but it is parameter-scoped rather than tool-scoped — there is no statement of when to create a todo vs. use another tool.

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