update_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 discloses the primary behavior (updating completion status) and a side effect (clearing todo cache for the project), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the action and side effect. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a side effect but lacks details on parameters, return values, error cases, or usage context. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 mentions 'completion status' which maps to the 'completed' parameter, but doesn't explain 'project_id' or 'todo_id' (e.g., what they reference or how to obtain them). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap for all three parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update a todo item's completion status.' This specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('todo item'), and field ('completion status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_todos' (read-only) and 'clear_cache' (different operation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar update tools (none in the sibling list).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions clearing cache as a side effect but doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to other update operations. With siblings like 'get_todos' and 'get_projects', there's no indication of workflow or context for choosing this tool.

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