todo_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that creation returns a 'slim receipt', explains slug fallback behavior, and notes blocked_by ordering. However, it does not mention permission requirements, project-selection prerequisites, idempotency, or failure conditions. The slug behavior is already thoroughly documented in the schema, so the marginal transparency added beyond structured data is modest.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence delivers a distinct piece of information: scope, slug behavior, blocked_by, and return format. There is no filler, and the slug explanation is a condensed version of the lengthy schema text, appropriate for a top-level description.

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 return-value details aren't needed. The description covers core creation actions, slug, and blocked_by, but omits the requirement for an active project, the meaning of body/tags/priority, and how project_id overrides operate (although the schema covers project_id). For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, more context on prerequisites and error scenarios would be beneficial, but the current description is not critically incomplete.

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 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds clear meaning for blocked_by ('encode ordering') and summarizes slug behavior, but body, tags, priority, and title are not mentioned, and project_id is only implied by 'project-scoped.' Since the schema already describes slug and project_id in detail, the net added value is mostly for blocked_by, which leaves several parameters underexplained.

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 opens with 'Create a project-scoped todo' – a specific verb and resource. The 'create' verb clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like todo_update, todo_complete, and todo_archive, and the 'project-scoped' qualifier adds additional precision. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied through the verb 'create' and the todo domain, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as todo_update or todo_complete. It gives parameter guidance for slug and blocked_by but offers no exclusions or alternative-selection conditions. The tool name and context convey the primary use case, but the description lacks explicit routing.

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