things_create_todo

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 reveals that the tool creates a to-do and defaults to the inbox, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether the creation is reversible, what happens if a project is missing, or what the response contains.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with little wasted wording. However, it trails off with an ellipsis, signaling an incomplete description and leaving the final project option under-specified.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is too thin. It names destination contexts but does not explain how those are supplied or what an agent should expect after creation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no field-level documentation required and the baseline is 4. The destination list adds conceptual context, but the schema is empty and the description does not clarify how an agent would actually specify inbox, today, anytime, someday, or a project.

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 specific verb and resource ("Creates a to-do in Things 3") plus the available destination contexts, which clearly separates it from update, complete, and list operations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling create tools such as todoist_create_task or create_omnifocus_task, so it falls short of the strongest differentiation.

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 lists destination options and the default inbox, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus things_update_todo, things_complete_todo, or other task-creation siblings. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage to inference from the tool name.

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