todo_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. It is a mutation tool yet says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether the update is reversible, or what happens on an invalid uuid.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the status mapping following. No filler, though the 'HoldOn' branding adds little for an agent.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Only the status codes are covered; the uuid parameter, update semantics, and error behavior are absent.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description's 'status: 1=open, 2=done' mapping is genuinely additive value the schema lacks. However, uuid and content are entirely unexplained, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (HoldOn todo) plus the two fields it can change (content, status). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling todo_complete, which likely covers the status=2 case, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it differs from todo_complete despite an apparent overlap when status=2 (done). The agent is left to guess which tool to call for marking a todo complete.

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