Drop a Boardroom todo

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

Discloses that it is a soft state (non-destructive) and that agent_id is required. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Could mention return value or side effects, but the key behavior is covered.

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 sentences: one stating the action and one giving usage context. Extremely concise, front-loaded, with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description covers the essential purpose and when to use it. Missing explicit mention of return value or confirmation, but for a simple state-changing tool with two trivial params, it is nearly 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 coverage is 0%. The description only notes that agent_id is required without explaining its purpose or what todo_id refers to. Adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's presence of two required strings.

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?

Clearly states it marks a todo as dropped, distinguishing it as a soft state (not a delete) and explicitly contrasting with a delete operation. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_todo and complete_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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when a todo is obsolete but the history still matters.' This implies when not to use (if history doesn't matter, use delete_todo). No explicit list of alternatives, but sufficient for context.

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