Append a note to a To Do task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool appends a timestamped note without erasing existing content, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the note is appended as plain text or markdown, character limits, or what happens if the task already has a note. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loading the key action and benefit. Every sentence adds value: the first explains core behavior (append without erasing), and the second clarifies when to use it. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context but is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, updated task object), nor does it mention error conditions (e.g., invalid list_id). For a tool in this context, more detail on output and error handling would improve completeness.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no meaningful descriptions for the three required parameters. The description adds context for the 'note' parameter by explaining it will be timestamped and appended. However, it does not clarify the format or constraints for 'list_id' and 'task_id' (e.g., whether they are GUIDs or names). The lack of parameter-level descriptions is a gap, but the high-level semantics are partially addressed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and a clear resource ('Microsoft To Do task's notes/body'), and explicitly distinguishes this tool from tools that might overwrite content by stating 'WITHOUT erasing existing content'. It also contrasts with other sibling tools like todo_create_task or todo_update_task by focusing on adding notes rather than creating or updating entire tasks.

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 says to use the tool 'to record explanations, decisions, or what was done on a task', which implies use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., using todo_update_task to overwrite notes). It lacks guidance on prerequisites like needing a list_id and task_id from other tools.

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