todoist_filter_update

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the frozen filter restriction, but lacks details on error conditions (e.g., filter not found), idempotency, or return values. The mutation behavior is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and a critical note. No extraneous information, every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description provides the core intent and a key restriction. However, it lacks context about authorization, success/failure responses, and any side effects. It is adequate but could be more complete for a mutation operation.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description lists the same fields and mentions filter_id/filter_name as identifiers, adding minimal extra meaning. It does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Update an existing filter' and lists the updatable fields (name, query, color, order, favorite status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like filter_create and filter_get, which have different actions.

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 implies when to use (to update a filter's properties) and includes a notable limitation (frozen filters cannot be modified). However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use or compare with alternatives like creating a new filter.

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