emacs_org_todo_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and gives no information about whether existing TODO states are overwritten, what happens if the heading is not found, whether the buffer must be visible, or what side effects occur. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler: 'Set TODO state for a heading.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While more detail could be added, there is no redundancy or wasted wording, so it earns a strong conciseness score.

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 simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks behavioral details such as error handling, overwrite semantics, and when to use this tool over sibling org-edit operations. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves some important context unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters—state, buffer, heading—have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already provides examples like TODO, DONE, and NEXT.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set TODO state for a heading.' It clearly identifies the operation and the target, distinguishing it from siblings that list todos (emacs_org_todo_list) or set other attributes (emacs_org_tag_set, emacs_org_property_set). No explicit contrast is made, but the resource is specific enough that the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to change a heading's TODO keyword. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as emacs_org_heading_update or emacs_org_tag_set, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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