set_group_todo

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 does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the name — that the todo 'reminds all members' (i.e. a broadcast side effect) — but says nothing about permissions required, whether the todo can be unset, rate limits, or failure modes for a mutation tool.

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 core statement is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The trailing :param lines are redundant with a 100%-covered schema, but they are short and do not bury the purpose.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and the notification effect, but omits the permission/error context an agent would want before invoking a state-changing group operation. Adequate, not complete.

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 100% and both parameters (group_id, message_id) are already documented in the schema. The :param lines in the description merely restate the schema text verbatim, adding no format, range, or validity details — baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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+resource+scope: setting a group message as a 'group todo' that reminds all members. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from generic message tools, though it never contrasts itself with the obviously similar sibling set_essence_msg (another 'highlight this message' operation).

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never explains how this differs from set_essence_msg or other message-marking tools, nor does it state prerequisites such as requiring group-admin rights, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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