todoist_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the six available actions, it doesn't describe what happens during each operation (e.g., whether deletions are permanent, if updates require specific permissions, what 'reorder' actually does to existing sections, or what the tool returns). For a multi-action tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the scope and available actions. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Section management within Todoist projects') followed by the specific operations. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more structured guidance.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns for different actions, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema without understanding the behavioral outcomes or constraints of this multi-action management 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose as 'Section management within Todoist projects' with specific verbs 'create, read, update, delete, and reorder sections'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like todoist_tasks and todoist_projects by focusing specifically on sections, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use sections versus other organizational methods (like labels or filters), nor does it provide context about when different actions (create vs. update vs. reorder) are appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the parameter descriptions alone.

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