Update Todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only states that the tool updates text, but does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, permissions, or whether other fields are preserved. This is sparse behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple, has only two required parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description adequately covers the operation's purpose. It lacks deeper behavioral detail, but for a straightforward text update, the provided information is mostly sufficient.

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% for both id and text, so the schema already clearly documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds the word 'existing' which slightly clarifies that id must refer to an already-created todo, but this is minor beyond the schema.

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 'Update the text of an existing todo item' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('todo item'), and specifies the exact scope ('text'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like complete or add, which perform different operations.

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 usage by stating 'existing todo item' and 'new text', making it clear this tool is for modifying the text of an already-created todo. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection among sibling tools.

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