Update a To Do task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It hints at mutation (update) but does not state whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, whether it returns the updated object, or any side effects (e.g., notifications). The basics of setting status to 'notStarted' are covered, but deeper behavioral expectations are missing.

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 with upfront purpose and two specific tips. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though the tips could be bulleted for even faster scanning.

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 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context on return values, error conditions (e.g., invalid list_id), and behavior of partial updates. The current description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 only 17% (only due_date has a description). The description adds value by explaining how to use 'status' for reopening (notStarted) and 'due_date' for clearing (null), but does not clarify the semantics of 'importance' or whether 'title' replaces or appends. With 6 parameters, more parameter guidance is needed.

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 tool updates a Microsoft To Do task and lists the editable fields (title, due date, importance, status). It is specific and distinct from siblings like todo_create_task or todo_complete_tasks, though it could better differentiate from todo_checklist or todo_add_note.

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 specific usage tips for reopening tasks and clearing due dates, which is helpful. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like todo_complete_tasks, todo_checklist, or todo_add_note, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., list must exist).

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