Set the checked state of one or more TODO map elements by their IDs. Updates only the specified elements, with no automatic completion of child elements.
TODOマップの要素のチェック状態を書き換える。1件でも複数件でもよい。「親をチェックすると配下も完了扱いになる」というアプリ内の表示上の挙動はこのツールでは再現しない(指定した要素だけを書き換える、配下への自動連鎖はしない)。配下も揃えたい場合は、対象の要素をすべてupdatesに列挙すること。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapId | Yes | list_mapsで得たマップのID | |
| updates | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the single most non-obvious behavior: the tool does NOT reproduce the app's parent-check-cascades-to-children display behavior, only the specified elements are written. It omits error/permission/return behavior, but the key semantic trap 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?
Four sentences, all purposeful, with the purpose front-loaded. The cascade clarification and its remedy are a little repetitive but each earns its place by preventing a specific misuse.
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?
No output schema or annotations, but for a simple mutation tool the description covers what is mutated, the scope (single vs batch), and the key filtering/behavioral constraint. Missing only failure and permission semantics, which are minor here.
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 50% (the top-level 'updates' array lacks a description), but the prose compensates by explaining that 'updates' is the enumeration of target elements and that all desired elements must be listed. Combined with mapId/elementId descriptions referencing list_maps/list_elements, an agent can call it correctly.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: rewriting the checked state of elements in a TODO map, and explicitly notes it handles one or many elements. It does not name a sibling tool (e.g. edit_element) to differentiate, but the scope statement 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?
Gives clear operating context: use it when you want to change check state, and if you want children aligned you must enumerate every target element in 'updates'. It does not compare against alternatives like edit_element, but the cascade caveat is a real usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.