kaiten_update_checklist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing about what destruction means here (e.g. that reordering shifts other checklists) or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool with a destructive flag, the single sentence leaves the behavioral picture entirely to the annotations.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The structure is fine; the content volume is too low for a three-parameter destructive mutation.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with a nested parameter object and an output schema, the description omits preconditions, side effects on sibling items when order changes, and any scope notes. An output schema justifies skipping return-value explanation, but the behavioral gaps remain.

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 must compensate; it only hints at the nested `changes` fields ("name or order") and says nothing about `card_id`, `checklist_id`, or that `changes` rejects additional properties. Partial but not adequate compensation for three undocumented required 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Change a checklist") plus the two mutable fields (name, order), so an agent knows it mutates the checklist container rather than its items. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from kaiten_update_checklist_item or kaiten_create_checklist, leaving that to the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this versus kaiten_update_checklist_item, kaiten_delete_checklist, or kaiten_create_checklist, and no prerequisites such as needing the card_id/checklist_id first. Usage is only inferable from the phrase "name or order".

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