update_todo_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the task is updated and lists allowed status values; it does not mention whether the update is partial or full, whether required IDs are necessary, or what effects/side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, and the status values are useful extra detail. The second sentence is unstructured but still earns its place; slight formatting improvements could make it clearer, but there is no wasted text.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain update semantics, parameter meanings, required IDs, or expected response. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly with only the description and bare schema names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for 'status' by listing valid values ('notStarted', 'inProgress', 'completed', 'deferred'). The other five parameters (title, list_id, task_id, due_date, importance) receive no explanation, including date format and optionality.

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 a specific action ('Update') and resource ('To Do task'), so an agent can distinguish it from create/get/delete/list todo tasks and from update_planner_task. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the verb-object pairing is enough for basic purpose clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_todo_task, get_todo_task, update_planner_task, or delete_todo_task. It does not mention prerequisites, optional updates, or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the schema.

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