tocaro_create_todo_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation, that the created project code appears in the return value, and that the code follows the 'tr' + 9 characters format. This is useful behavioral detail beyond the bare schema, though it does not mention permission requirements or failure modes.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by required parameters and the essential downstream usage note. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple two-string-parameter creation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what is created, required inputs, ID formats, and how the result connects to a sibling tool. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the expected group ID format ('gr' + 8-9 characters) and the resulting project code format, and by noting that name is required. However, it does not explain what the name parameter should represent or any constraints on it, so parameter guidance remains incomplete.

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 a specific action and resource: creating a new ToDo list/project under a group. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly connecting the returned project code to tocaro_create_task, so an agent can distinguish creation of a list from creation of a 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?

The description clearly states that group and name are required and explains how the result should be used downstream with tocaro_create_task. It gives a clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools like tocaro_list_todo_lists.

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