Drop a Boardroom todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: 'Soft state, not a delete.' However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or impact on related data. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: first defines action, second clarifies state, third provides usage context and required parameter. No fluff, well front-loaded.

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 no output schema and only 2 required params, the description covers purpose, state nature, usage context, and a required param. It does not describe response or state change details, but given simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description only mentions 'agent_id required', which is already in the schema. It adds no explanation for todo_id or what agent_id specifically means, providing minimal additional 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 ('Marks a todo as dropped'), the resource ('todo'), and distinguishes it from deletion with 'Soft state, not a delete'. This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'delete_todo'.

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The description gives contextual guidance: 'Use when a todo is obsolete but the history still matters.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or name an alternative tool, though the sibling 'delete_todo' is implied.

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