todo_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on duplicate items, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). The description mentions the source of items but lacks other critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

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 5 parameters, 80% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and provides some usage context, but lacks important behavioral information about authentication, error handling, and response format. The absence of annotations increases the burden on the description, which it doesn't fully meet.

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 80% (4 out of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'findings from review and coach' which loosely relates to the 'source' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('item to the project todo list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'todo_list' (which likely lists items) and 'todo_update' (which likely modifies existing items). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'save_review_findings', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides some context by stating 'All findings from review and coach should be added here', which implies usage after those processes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'todo_update' for modifying existing items. The guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.

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