Modify an existing todo item's due date, content, or assignee in Basecamp 2 by specifying the project and todo IDs.
Update an existing todo item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due_on | No | New due date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| content | No | New text content | |
| todo_id | Yes | The todo ID | |
| project_id | Yes | The project ID | |
| assignee_id | No | New assignee person ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only 'Update an existing todo item,' omitting whether updates are partial or full, which permissions are required, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is effectively no behavioral disclosure.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not provide enough information to be appropriately sized.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain partial-update semantics or return behavior. Although the input schema documents parameters, the definition leaves key operational context missing for an update operation.
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%, with each of the five parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantics.
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?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (todo item) and notes the item must already exist. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like complete_todo, delete_todo, or create_todo, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when to choose this tool over those alternatives.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The description implies only that it modifies an existing todo, but does not say when to use update_todo rather than complete_todo or create_todo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.