wb_todo_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a write operation and requires confirm:true, but it does not describe what actually happens to the todo item, whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether changes are reversible, or what response the agent can expect. For a mutating tool, this is a meaningful 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the minimum-argument requirement and the safety flag. The parameter enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is justified and easy to scan.

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 description covers all seven parameters, the required id, and the confirmation safety gate, making it sufficient for a basic call. However, there is no output schema, no annotation safety profile, and no statement about return behavior or side effects, so an agent still lacks a full picture of what happens after the edit.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including enums and the date pattern. The description repeats the parameter list without adding substantial new meaning beyond marking id as a prefix and reiterating the confirm requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 operation as '编辑待办字段' (edit todo fields), identifying both the verb and the resource. It also adds a useful constraint about passing at least one field to change. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like wb_todo_done or wb_todo_tag, though the edit verb makes the distinction mostly inferable.

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 concrete invocation context: at least one editable field must be provided, and the write operation requires confirm:true. It does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus siblings, but the conditions for calling it are clear and actionable.

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