Update Todo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description adds value by mentioning 'search and tag ops' which suggests this tool might have search capabilities and tag operations beyond basic field updates. However, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing fields not mentioned in updates.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the phrase 'supports search and tag ops' is ambiguous and doesn't clearly earn its place in such a brief description - it creates confusion rather than adding clarity.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 0 parameters (minimal complexity), and annotations covering basic behavioral traits, the description is somewhat complete. However, the mention of 'search and tag ops' creates confusion about what this tool actually does versus siblings, and the empty parameter schema contradicts the implied capabilities.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description adds context about 'search and tag ops' which suggests this tool might have implicit parameters or capabilities not reflected in the empty schema. However, this is somewhat confusing given the empty parameter 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 states the tool updates fields on a todo item, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'complete_todo' or 'add_todo' - the mention of 'search and tag ops' is vague and doesn't clarify what makes this tool unique.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'complete_todo' or 'add_todo'. The mention of 'search and tag ops' is ambiguous and doesn't provide clear context for tool selection. The description lacks any when/when-not statements or alternative recommendations.

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