kaiten_update_checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether omitted fields in 'changes' are preserved, whether the rename is visible to other users, or why a rename is flagged destructive — a mild tension the description never reconciles.

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 nine-word sentence with the verb and the mutable fields front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than merely concise for a tool with a nested parameter object.

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?

With three required parameters, a nested object, 0% schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description is too thin — no prerequisites, no field-optionality, no confirmation of what a partial 'changes' payload does. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but little else is covered.

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 carry the load. It does map the nested 'changes' object onto its two real fields ('name' and 'order'/'sort_order'), which is the most important semantic. However it never mentions card_id/checklist_id, does not say which nested fields are optional, and gives no value format for sort_order.

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 ('Change') and resource ('checklist name or order'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling item-level tools like kaiten_update_checklist_item. It does not explicitly name a sibling or note that it does not touch the checklist's items, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the card must be known), and no mention of alternatives such as kaiten_update_checklist_item or kaiten_delete_checklist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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