create_todo

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. It mentions 'interactive prompts' which hints at user interaction, but doesn't clarify what this entails (e.g., whether it blocks execution, requires user input). It also fails to address permissions, error conditions, or mutation effects beyond the basic creation action.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that gets directly to the point. While efficient, the phrase 'with interactive prompts' could be more specific to avoid ambiguity, but overall it's appropriately brief without unnecessary 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns the created item, confirmation message), doesn't address authentication requirements hinted by the authToken parameter, and leaves 'interactive prompts' unexplained. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, not even clarifying the 'interactive prompts' aspect in relation to parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('create a new todo item') and resource ('todo item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_todo' or 'list_todos' beyond the basic verb, and the phrase 'with interactive prompts' is somewhat vague about implementation details.

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 like 'update_todo' or 'list_todos'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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