Server defines 5 tools with explicit schemas and basic descriptions. All tools have input schemas with type definitions and required fields properly declared. However, descriptions are minimal (10-40 chars), parameter descriptions lack context about constraints and expected formats, and output schemas are not documented. No error handling guidance, no parameter validation rules, and no indication of idempotency or side effects. Naming follows verb_noun convention (create_todo, list_todos, get_todo, update_todo, delete_todo) which is good, but descriptions do not explain WHEN to use each tool or what distinguishes them from similar operations.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 chars. Example: 'Create a new todo item with a title and optional description. Returns the created todo ID and timestamp. Use this before update_todo to add new tasks.'
• Add constraint descriptions to all parameters. Example: 'title (string, 1-255 chars): The todo item title. Required.' and 'todo_id (string, UUID format): The unique identifier of the todo item.'
• Return structured JSON objects instead of TextContent. Example: create_todo should return {"id": "uuid", "title": "...", "description": "...", "completed": false, "created_at": "2024-01-15T10:30:00Z"} so LLMs can extract fields for chaining.
• Add error recovery hints. When todo not found, return: 'Todo ID "xyz" not found. Call list_todos() to see available todos, or check the ID format (must be UUID).'
• Implement confirmation for delete_todo. Add optional 'confirm' parameter (boolean, default false) or return a confirmation message requiring explicit approval before deletion.