create_todo

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 only states that a TODO is created ('Create a new TODO item') and gives setup prerequisites, but it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, response behavior, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap—nothing indicates what happens after creation or what constraints apply.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action, followed by an important setup note in all caps for emphasis. Every sentence earns its place; the second sentence provides critical workflow context. There is zero redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and nested objects, but no output schema. The description gives useful setup context (calling list_projects and switch_project) and clarifies the tool's role, but it does not explain return values, error handling, or the impact of creating a TODO (e.g., does it appear in list_todos immediately?). For moderate complexity, this description is partial but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond the phrase 'optional metadata,' which is vague and not tied to a specific parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a new TODO item with optional metadata.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (TODO), and the optional metadata mention adds nuance. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_todo and delete_todo, which also act on TODOs but with different actions.

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 explicit pre-requisite guidance: 'Before creating your first TODO, call list_projects to check existing workspaces, then call switch_project to set up your project workspace.' This tells the agent when and in what order to use related tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_todo or search_todos, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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