Propose Todo Mutation

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the storage location ('proposals bucket' and 'todos/{action}'). However, it does not disclose what happens when a proposal is made, whether it is actually applied, or any side effects or approval flow.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and path template. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 description is minimal for a tool with 7 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings. It lacks context on the proposal lifecycle, what 'propose' means in practice, and how this differs from other proposal and todo tools. It is adequate but leaves important gaps.

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 schema already documents parameter meanings. The description only adds the 'todos/{action}' path template, which gives slight context for the 'action' parameter but does not compensate for the generic schema descriptions of 'content' or other parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('propose') and resource ('todo mutation'), and further specifies the storage path 'todos/{action}'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_write and propose_profile_mutation, which target other resource types.

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 phrase 'under the proposals bucket' implies this is for proposing rather than applying mutations directly, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_memory_todo or update_project_todo. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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