update-todo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context: the HTTP method (PUT) and required auth scope (todos:write). However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, side effects, or error/response 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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then supplies the endpoint and auth scope. Every part earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus fully described parameters are adequate for basic invocation. However, the omission of PUT update semantics (partial vs full update) and expected return value leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing id as a path parameter in the URL and implying title, description, and isCompleted are request body fields, which is not explicit in the schema itself.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('a to-do'), the HTTP method (PUT), and the endpoint path. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create-todo, get-todo, delete-todo, and list-todos.

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 implies use for modifying an existing todo via the verb and PUT endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over create-todo or delete-todo. The usage context is clear enough for a simple CRUD tool, but it relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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