Change an entry's TODO state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key side effect: 'Moving into DONE/CANCELLED stamps a CLOSED timestamp; moving out of one clears it.' This goes beyond the basic action. However, it omits other potential behaviors like whether transitions are restricted (e.g., DONE to TODO), reversibility, or return values, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the primary action and examples; the second immediately covers the important side effect. No filler or redundant information. Front-loaded with the main purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter examples, and a key behavioral side effect. It does not explain the return value, but that is not required given no output schema. It could mention transition constraints, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters comprehensively (id and state with enum values and null semantics). The description adds examples of state values and mentions the null removal implicitly, but it does not provide new syntactic details beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra value.

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 the action: 'Change the TODO keyword of an entry' with concrete examples of states (DONE, TODO, NEXT, WAITING, CANCELLED). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like org_capture (creating) or org_archive_entry (archiving) by focusing on state mutation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 it (when an entry's TODO state needs changing) and provides context on state transitions via the timestamp behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for when not to use it, though the sibling set makes the intent clear.

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