toggle_task

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false indicating mutation), the description adds key behaviors: backing up the note, error on ambiguous match, and the flipping behavior of done parameter. This provides rich context for safe invocation.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior details, and safety (backup). No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, return type is covered. The description explains input, behavior, and edge cases (ambiguity). Minor gap: what happens if match not found? But overall sufficient for a simple toggle tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains 'match' (substring to find checkbox) and 'done' (flip/check/uncheck) in detail. However, 'id' is not described, leaving its meaning implicit (presumably note ID).

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 'Check/uncheck one checkbox line in a note' using a substring match, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_note or replace_note by its focused task toggling purpose.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings or scenarios where other tools (e.g., replace_note) would be more appropriate, leaving decision-making to the agent.

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