toggle_journal_todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only reveals that mutation occurs. It leaves the core toggle semantics ambiguous — whether calling with only todoId flips isCompleted, how toggle and update interact when fields are also supplied, and what the response looks like are all undocumented.

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?

Nine words in a single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb leads and the resource follows immediately. It is efficient, though the vague phrase 'its fields' is slightly under-specified, which is more a completeness concern than a structure problem.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry behavioral context that the structured fields cannot — and it does not. The return value, the toggle-with-only-todoId behavior, and how multiple update fields interact are all missing, requiring the agent to guess or call blind.

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 100%, so every parameter already carries meaning in the schema (e.g., dueDate 'null to clear', the priority enum). The description's generic 'update its fields' adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: toggling a journal todo's completion or updating its fields. This differentiates it from the read-only sibling list_journal_todos, though the 'A or B' phrasing makes it slightly unclear which mode is primary.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent calls this tool when it wants to toggle a journal todo's completion status or modify its fields, and the presence of a dedicated read sibling (list_journal_todos) makes the distinction fairly obvious. However, there are no explicit when-to-use conditions, when-not-to-use exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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