Update to-do

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that this is a partial update, describes the return value relative to get_todo, explains status semantics, notes excluded fields, and states that no notification is sent. These details materially improve safe invocation.

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 focused sentences, front-loads the core action, and then layers update semantics, status behavior, and side effects without wasted text.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers partial update behavior, return shape, status semantics, and exclusions. Minor gaps remain around due_time and permissions, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description covers several updatable fields and clarifies status behavior, which helps offset low schema coverage. However, it omits due_time, and does not add enough detail to fully compensate for the 43% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource (‘Change a to-do’s…’) and enumerates the mutable fields, making the tool immediately distinguishable from get_todo, list_todos, create_todo, and other update_* tools.

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?

It gives a clear use case (‘e.g. mark it complete’) and states boundaries such as assignees and checklist items not being changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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