update-todo-task-list

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only, so the description isn't required to repeat that. It adds value by disclosing that only displayName is writable and that built-in lists fail with an API error, preventing misuse. It doesn't cover response behavior, but given the annotations, this is a solid disclosure.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action (rename) appears early, followed by a concise tip with the exact body format and constraints. Every sentence contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple update tool with only one writable field, the description covers the essential behavior, the required body format, the failure mode for built-in lists, and how to obtain the list ID. The destructive confirm gate is documented in the input schema's confirm parameter, so that omission doesn't hurt completeness. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema already describes parameters at 80% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete body example ({ displayName: 'New name' }) and clarifies that only displayName is meaningful, which is critical because the schema's body object allows many properties and additionalProperties: true. This goes beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Renames a Microsoft To Do task list') and identifies the exact writable property ('Only displayName is writable'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-todo-task, which operate on tasks rather than the task list itself.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent what this tool is for (renaming a list), what can be changed (displayName only), and what cannot be done (built-in lists return an error). It also points to the sibling tool list-todo-task-lists for obtaining list IDs, effectively guiding selection and prerequisites.

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