Edit todo

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so they do not convey how the edit behaves. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: updates are partial rather than full replacements, and passing """ clears fields instead of setting invalid values. It does not cover invalid id or response behavior, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 carry the entire definition: the first front-loads the core purpose and fields, the second captures the update and clearing semantics. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 7-parameter partial update with full schema coverage and annotations, the description plus schema is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could additionally mention return value or error behavior for non-existent ids, but those are minor gaps for a simple edit operation.

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 every parameter, including the empty-string clear behavior, is documented in the schema itself. The description provides a useful high-level summary but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Edit'), a resource ('an existing item'), and the exact affected fields (title/description/category/priority/dueDate/list) by id. This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like todo_add (creation) and todo_delete (destruction) without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: editing existing todos by id. It also adds essential partial-update guidance ('Only fields you pass are changed') and explain how to clear fields with empty strings. It does not explicitly name when not to use it relative to siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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