Update List

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what 'destructive' means here (e.g., whether unspecified fields are cleared, whether existing tasks are affected, or any permission requirements). With no extra disclosure, the description relies entirely on annotations and fails to enrich the agent's mental model.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple update operation, though the brevity sacrifices some behavioral detail. It earns its place but does not go beyond the bare minimum.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, this description is severely lacking. It does not explain which settings can be updated, whether fields are optional, the meaning of null values, or what the response contains. The agent is left to guess at critical details for safe invocation.

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%, and the description does not enumerate or explain any parameters beyond 'supplied settings.' Although parameter names like status, content, and assignee are somewhat self-explanatory, required list_id, the accepted formats, and the effect of null values are left undocumented. The description adds minimal value over 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a ClickUp List'), and specifies that it updates 'supplied settings,' which conveys partial updates. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools like update_task or update_folder beyond the resource type, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for modifying an existing list, nor does it contrast with create_list_in_space or update_folder. The intended use is only implicitly clear from the name.

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