todo_save

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 'save' implies a write operation but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing data), requires specific permissions, or has side effects like creating new files. The term 'snapshot' hints at a persistent state capture, but this isn't elaborated, leaving 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 ('Save a new todo snapshot') that directly conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 a write operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'save' entails (e.g., file creation, database update), error conditions, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a todo management context.

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 (todos, project_path, context, session_context_id). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'snapshot' concept or how parameters interact. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Save a new todo snapshot' clearly states the action (save) and resource (todo snapshot), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'todo_save' tools like 'todo_list' or 'todo_get' beyond the basic verb, missing specific differentiation about what makes a 'snapshot' unique.

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 'todo_save' siblings (e.g., 'todo_list', 'todo_delete') or context-related tools (e.g., 'context_save'). There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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