Update a Boardroom todo

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states the updatable fields and requires agent_id for attribution, but does not disclose behavior like idempotency, error handling, permissions, or return value. The mention of possible statuses adds some behavioral context, but significant gaps remain.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and a required parameter note. No redundancy or fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, the description covers purpose and usage but omits return value format, prerequisites (e.g., existing todo?), and error conditions. The required agent_id is mentioned, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description helps by listing the updatable fields and providing examples (kanban statuses, unassign). However, it does not describe each parameter individually beyond the schema, and the schema already covers agent_id, todo_id, and assigned_to_agent_id. Partial compensation for low coverage.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'todo', and lists specific fields (title, description, priority, status, assignee). It distinguishes from siblings like create_todo or complete_todo by specifying what can be updated and when to use (scope changes, ownership shifts, kanban moves).

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 explicit usage scenarios: scope changes, ownership shifts, moving between kanban columns. It also lists the valid status values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like complete_todo, leaving some ambiguity.

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