create-todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating the required auth scope ('todos:write') and the HTTP method/path, but it does not describe response shape, error behavior, or side effects beyond creation.

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 extremely concise: a single operational sentence plus a scope note. There is no repetitive or extraneous content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple 3-parameter create operation, the endpoint and scope provide a workable foundation. However, the phrase 'PAT-bound team' is cryptic, and there is no guidance about expected response or preconditions, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 title, description, and isCompleted are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning such as value formats, constraints, or dependencies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a to-do') and names the exact endpoint (POST /api/public/teams/{teamId}/todos). The create verb clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list-todos, update-todo, and delete-todo.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the create action and gives an endpoint/scope, but it does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to update-todo or other create tools.

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