todo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds a useful write prerequisite ('requires project="<name>" (or project_id)') plus priority alias behavior. However, it never explains what is destructive (no delete action is even listed), whether updates are reversible, or any rate limits, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 action list is front-loaded and the paragraph is dense with no filler sentences; every clause maps to a real parameter or behavior. It is somewhat run-on but appropriately sized for an 18-parameter dispatcher.

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 multi-action tool with 18 params and no output schema, the description covers the action set, write prerequisites, priority semantics, and list filtering well enough to call the tool correctly. The remaining gaps (status/compact/due_date semantics) are minor given the absence of an output schema.

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 50%, so the description must carry more weight. It usefully explains parent_todo_id (subtask), the priority aliases ('older names high and medium also work'), and the project/project_id requirement, but leaves status, compact, model, component_id, and due_date undocumented in both places.

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 'Manage todos' and then enumerates the six concrete actions (add, update, list, next, block/unblock), each with a short gloss, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling competes for the same todo-management role, so this is a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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?

Each action gets operational context: 'next' is defined as 'open, unblocked, highest priority', block/unblock is explained via blocked_by/blocked_by_problem, and list filtering/sorting is spelled out. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to alternative tools, 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.