update_todo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a todo item with interactive prompts, but doesn't clarify what these prompts entail, whether the update is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of an update tool with interactive prompts, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the interactive prompts involve, what data is returned, or how errors are handled, leaving key contextual gaps for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('authToken'), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. However, it doesn't provide any additional context about how parameters interact with the tool's functionality, such as how 'authToken' relates to the update process or interactive prompts.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing todo item'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_todo' or 'list_todos' in terms of scope or specific use cases, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'create_todo' or 'delete_todo'. It mentions 'interactive prompts' but doesn't explain what triggers them or when this tool is preferred over direct updates, leaving usage unclear.

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