Update Things 3 Todo

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by describing partial, non-destructive updates. The description adds useful behavioral details: notes replacement behavior, tag appending, and a note about URL scheme. No contradiction.

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 concise, well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by bullet-point arguments. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers update semantics, partial update behavior, tag behavior, and return format ({ success, id, name }). It is complete for its complexity.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds extra meaning: for notes it warns about replacement, for addTags it clarifies appending behavior, and for completed it specifies boolean behavior.

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 'Update an existing todo in Things 3 by ID,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (todo). It distinguishes from siblings like things3_create_todo and things3_complete_todo by its focus on updating existing items.

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 explains that only provided fields are updated and omitted fields are left unchanged, giving clear usage context. It also notes tag behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like things3_complete_todo, so it loses one point.

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