create_todo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but only restates the mutation. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the created todo is assigned/notified, whether attachments must be uploaded first via upload_attachment, or what the call returns.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding or redundancy. It is lean, though the brevity veers toward under-specification rather than over-explanation.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the project/todolist scoping requirement and the attachment workflow, leaving significant gaps an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 (due_at format, attachment token origin, assignee_id) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or relationship detail beyond 'todo item in a todo list', so 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a new todo item') with immediate scope ('in a todo list'), so the agent knows this creates rather than updates or lists todos. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like create_todolist or create_comment beyond the resource name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_todo for modifying an existing item. The agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name itself.

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