Drop a Boardroom todo

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the operation is a soft state transition with history retained, not a data deletion. However, this sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description never says whether the state change is reversible, whether re-dropping an already-dropped todo errors, or what the call returns.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with the core semantics first and the usage condition after. 'agent_id required' is slightly redundant with the schema's required list, but nothing else is wasted.

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 two-parameter state-mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, state semantics, and when to use it. It leaves open reversibility, error behavior on an already-dropped todo, and response shape.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for both parameters. It only says 'agent_id required', which merely restates the schema's required array and explains nothing about what agent_id identifies or what format todo_id takes.

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 and resource ('Marks a todo as dropped') plus the semantic scope ('decided not to do it', 'soft state, not a delete'). It effectively distinguishes itself from the delete_todo sibling without naming it, though it never explicitly names the alternative tool.

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?

'Use when a todo is obsolete but the history still matters' gives a clear activation condition and implicitly frames the delete_todo alternative via 'not a delete'. It stops short of naming siblings or stating exclusions (e.g., don't use on already-completed todos).

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