Add an item to a Kaiten card checklist, setting its text and optionally its completion, order, due date, and responsible user.
Add a checklist item with optional completion, order, due date and responsible user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| card_id | Yes | ||
| checked | No | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| sort_order | No | ||
| checklist_id | Yes | ||
| responsible_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that four fields are optional, which the schema's required list already conveys, and says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or side effects on the parent card.
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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terse noun list reads more like a field recap than a usage statement.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But for a mutation tool with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the required identifiers and their relationships undocumented, which is a meaningful gap.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does name four optional fields (completion, order, due date, responsible user) mapping to checked, sort_order, due_date and responsible_id. However the three required parameters (card_id, checklist_id, text) are never mentioned, and no format or ID-ownership detail is given.
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 and resource ("Add a checklist item") and enumerates the optional fields, so an agent can distinguish it from kaiten_update_checklist_item or kaiten_delete_checklist_item. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it is not.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. the checklist must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.