bear_toggle_todo

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

Annotations indicate this tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the detail that it toggles between states, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose further traits like rate limits or response behavior beyond what annotations already provide.

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 with no extraneous information. The key points (toggle action, 1-based index, prerequisite) are front-loaded and clearly presented.

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 is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool does, how to use the index, and a prerequisite. It could mention the expected response or success indication, but for a simple toggle this is minor.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the 1-based indexing and the recommended workflow (use bear_get_todos), which aids correct usage beyond the schema alone.

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 the resource 'specific TODO item in a Bear note', with the effect 'between complete and incomplete'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bear_get_todos by referencing the prerequisite, making its purpose 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 explicitly advises to use bear_get_todos first to get the correct index, and notes that item_index is 1-based. This provides clear guidance on prerequisites. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is otherwise strong.

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