toggle_todo

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 states the tool toggles completion status, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Toggle a todo's completion status') and clarifies the bidirectional nature ('complete <-> incomplete'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'todoId' documented as 'Todo ID to toggle'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('toggle') and resource ('a todo's completion status'), specifying the action between complete and incomplete states. It distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_todo' and 'uncomplete_todo' by indicating a bidirectional switch rather than one-way completion. However, it doesn't explicitly name these siblings for full differentiation.

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 usage when needing to change a todo's status in either direction, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'complete_todo' or 'uncomplete_todo'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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