Update Checklist Item

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

Annotations already indicate this is mutating but non-destructive and idempotent, so the description need not restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context: the 4096-character server-side limit, the fact that only text and checked state are supported, and the fork-specific absence of due_date and responsible_id. This goes beyond what the annotations and schema 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?

The description is three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides constraints and provenance guidance, all of which are directly useful to an agent.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety properties and the schema documents every parameter, the description adds the remaining critical context: limits, unsupported fields, and itemId sourcing. It does not describe the return value or explicitly state that at least one of text/checked should be provided, but these are minor gaps for an update tool with idempotent and non-destructive annotations.

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?

Although the schema has 100% property coverage, the description meaningfully enriches parameter understanding by specifying the text length cap and identifying itemId as coming from kaiten_get_checklist. It also clarifies that due_date and responsible_id are not valid parameters despite what might be expected from a general checklist item model.

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 ('Update a checklist item's text or checked flag') with a clear resource and scope. It also distinguishes the tool's capabilities from possible alternatives by noting that 'due_date' and 'responsible_id' are not exposed by this fork, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to modify a checklist item's text or checked state. It also gives a direct prerequisite by instructing that 'itemId from kaiten_get_checklist' should be used, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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