First, consider the following notation from your original question:

export const addTodo3 = (text: string) => <AddTodoAction>({
    type: "ADD_TODO",
    text
})

Using this notation, you typecast the returned object to the type AddTodoAction. However, the function's declared return type is still undefined (and the compiler will implicitly assume any as return type).

Use the following notation instead:

export const addTodo3 = (text: string): AddTodoAction => ({
    type: "ADD_TODO",
    text: text
})

In this case, omitting a required property will yield the expected compiler error. For example, omitting the text property will generate the following (desired) error:

Type '{ type: "ADD_TODO"; }' is not assignable to type 'TodoAction'.
  Type '{ type: "ADD_TODO"; }' is not assignable to type 'DeleteTodoAction'.
    Types of property 'type' are incompatible.
      Type '"ADD_TODO"' is not assignable to type '"DELETE_TODO"'.

Also see the playground example.

Edit

Per @Thomas comment, in newer TS compilers, we can simply do:

const foo = <T,>(x: T) => x;

Original Answer

The full example explaining the syntax referenced by Robin... brought it home for me:

Generic functions

Something like the following works fine:

function foo<T>(x: T): T { return x; }

However using an arrow generic function will not:

const foo = <T>(x: T) => x; // ERROR : unclosed `T` tag

Workaround: Use extends on the generic parameter to hint the compiler that it's a generic, e.g.:

const foo = <T extends unknown>(x: T) => x;