Add Checklist Item

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

Discloses the 4096-character server-side cap on text and the fork limitation that due_date and responsible_id are not exposed — meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already mark this as a non-read, non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false), and the description is fully consistent with that. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: the action, the constraints, and the ID sourcing plus edit routing. The core purpose is front-loaded before caveats, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a 4-param add operation: action, constraints, ID prerequisites, and the editing alternative are all covered. No output schema exists, but for a simple add operation the lack of return-value description is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds genuine value by stating the 4096-character limit on text and explaining that due_date and responsible_id are intentionally absent in this fork, which clarifies why those fields don't appear in the schema.

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?

Description states the specific verb+resource: 'Add a checklist item.' It differentiates from the edit sibling by explicitly routing modifications to kaiten_update_checklist_item, and clarifies the fork's limited scope (text and checked state only). An agent can distinguish add from edit without opening the schema.

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?

Tells the agent where to source the checklistId ('from kaiten_create_checklist or kaiten_get_checklist'), which is the key prerequisite for a valid call, and routes the edit case to kaiten_update_checklist_item. The add-vs-edit boundary is explicit, though it doesn't enumerate when-not-to-use cases beyond that.

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