Rename Checklist

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

Annotations already establish idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only the name field is supported and that items must be modified through separate tools, which clarifies the tool's scope beyond what annotations convey.

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 short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by operational guidance and scope exclusions, so every 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?

For a simple rename operation with three required parameters, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description supplies the necessary routing and scoping information. A minor gap is that it does not describe the response format, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 3. The description adds value by specifying the source of cardId and checklistId and by clarifying that name is the only supported editable field, giving agents more context than the schema alone provides.

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?

"Rename a checklist" states a specific verb and resource with no ambiguity. The description further distinguishes this tool from the checklist item tools by noting that items are managed via the *_checklist_item tools, so there is no confusion among siblings.

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?

The description tells the agent where to obtain the required identifiers: "cardId and checklistId from kaiten_get_checklist." It also excludes item management explicitly, which prevents misuse, though it does not enumerate all alternative tools or conditions for choosing them.

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