Update a Kaiten checklist item's fields, including text, completion status, due date, order, or responsible user; set null to clear text, due date, or responsible ID.
Change checklist item fields. checked marks completion; null clears text, due_date or responsible_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes | ||
| changes | Yes | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| checklist_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / card_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / changes / properties / due_date / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "format": "date",
- "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "format": "date-time",
- "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
- "type": "string"
- }
- ]
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "format": "date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / changes / properties / responsible_id / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
- "maximum": 9007199254740991,
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / checklist_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / item_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral rule: null clears text, due_date or responsible_id. However, it never states whether omitted fields are preserved (partial vs. full replace), which is central to a destructive update tool, and gives no warning about irreversibility.
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?
Two compact sentences with the primary action first and the null-clearing rule immediately after; there is no filler wording.
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 nested-object update with zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the null semantics but leaves out partial-update behavior, sort_order, and any mention of the destructive/idempotency implications. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described.
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 explains the semantics of the null values for text, due_date and responsible_id and the meaning of checked, which helps. It omits sort_order entirely and says nothing about the identifier parameters (card_id, checklist_id, item_id) or the nested 'changes' wrapper itself.
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 plus resource ('Change checklist item fields'), which clearly separates it from sibling add_checklist_item and delete_checklist_item. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the mutation scope is unambiguous.
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 mention of when to prefer add/delete checklist item tools, and no prerequisites or permission notes. Usage is only implied by the word 'Change'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.