todo_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a critical behavior ('Omitted fields are preserved') and the output shape ('Returns a slim receipt'), which adds value. However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., non-existent todo_id), whether a project override is required, or any side effects beyond the update. These are notable gaps given the absence of annotation context.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no filler. The primary action and core behavior are front-loaded, followed by a brief note on the return value. Every word earns its place, making this an example of efficient writing.

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 tool with 8 parameters, low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain when to use it, what the expected input fields are beyond the schema, or what 'slim receipt' entails since no output schema is provided. An agent would struggle to correctly construct a call without consulting the schema extensively and inferring usage from sibling names.

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 25% (only slug and project_id have descriptions). The description does not compensate: it merely says 'Update todo fields' without explaining any parameter semantics, enums, or relationships. The preservation note is about update behavior, not parameter meaning. The agent gets minimal additional insight about what each parameter does or how they interact.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update todo fields') and adds a key behavioral detail ('Omitted fields are preserved'). This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from other modification tools like todo_complete or todo_archive, which also change state. Still, the general 'update' scope is well conveyed.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention todo_complete for marking done, todo_archive for archiving, or any conditions for partial updates. An agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for a tool with many sibling operations.

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