Change a to-do

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

Adds context that annotations cannot convey: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you give change'), the approval gate with its exact 'Waiting for approval in Sara' response and the guarantee that nothing changes until Allow, and the disabled-tool response. This is far richer than the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints and is consistent with them.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and field list, then the alternative, return values, and gating. It is dense with sentences chained by semicolons and parentheses, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs for a gated mutation tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract — 'Changed to-do #id: title' with the new due time, the approval-waiting string, and the turned-off string. Combined with the schema's error note for unknown ids, an agent knows the full call and response picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still contributes the cross-cutting partial-update contract that applies to all seven parameters and cannot be inferred from any single field. It does not restate formats already in the schema, which is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Change one of the owner's to-dos in Sara by its id') and enumerates the mutable fields. It also identifies its source of ids (list_tasks or get_today), which makes it instantly distinguishable from add_task, delete_task and complete_task.

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?

Explicitly routes the simple case away ('Use complete_task to simply tick one off'), and states the availability prerequisite (the owner must enable 'Let other apps change things'). It does not contrast with delete_task or update_note, but the primary overlap is handled.

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