Create to-do

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it states the return shape ('returns it as get_todo shows it') and a side effect ('Assignees see it in their Contractor Foreman app'). It does not explain why the operation is destructive, but the annotations carry that signal.

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 tightly written sentences. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does and key optional fields; the second efficiently adds return behavior and visibility. No wasted words.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and openness, the description is nearly complete. It covers return behavior and a key side effect, though it could explicitly note that 'name' is the only required field and what happens if an invalid project_id is supplied.

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 57%, so several parameters (name, project_id, assignee_ids) are documented in the schema. The description groups the optional fields ('optionally on a project, with due date, priority and assignees') but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, leaving due_time and description unmentioned.

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 ('New') and resource ('to-do') and lists optional fields (project, due date, priority, assignees). This clearly distinguishes it from get_todo, list_todos, and update_todo, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies this tool is for creation but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools like create_punchlist, create_rfi, or update_todo. An agent must infer its place in the workflow.

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