delete_todo

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds context beyond annotations by noting that deleting the last open issue ToDo can trigger Huly classic issue status automation. This extra detail helps the agent anticipate consequences.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource. The second sentence adds critical behavioral context. 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 that the input schema is complex with three locator options, the top-level description is brief but sufficient because the schema and its descriptions handle the details. The warning about automation adds necessary context. Output schema existence means return value explanation is not required. Minor improvement could mention irreversibility or prerequisites.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the schema's locator description already guides on which form to use.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a Planner ToDo') and the resource type (ToDo). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_issue or delete_channel by specifying 'Planner ToDo'. The mention of potential side effects on Huly classic issue status automation adds specificity.

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 warns about destructiveness and a specific side effect, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., complete_todo, update_todo). The locator parameter description in the schema advises preferring issue/title/owner forms when the ID is unknown, which provides some usage guidance for parameter selection but not tool selection.

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