keep_check_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the matching strategy, but it omits important behavior such as what happens when no item matches, which note/list is targeted when note_id and list_title are absent, and whether the operation is idempotent or can partially succeed.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and timing are front-loaded, and the matching rule earns its place because it directly affects how an agent should invoke the tool.

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?

The tool is simple enough that this description covers the common use case, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. However, the ambiguity around how note_id and list_title select the target checklist, plus the lack of failure behavior, leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call it reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the required 'items' parameter by explaining item-name matching and substring behavior, but it gives no semantic guidance for the optional 'note_id' or 'list_title' parameters, which are ambiguous from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Tick off Keep checklist items'. It also states the trigger context, 'after they have been added to the Tesco basket (or bought)', which clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like keep_add_items, keep_uncheck_items, and keep_remove_items.

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 gives a clear usage condition: items should be ticked off only after they have been added to the basket or bought. It also explains the matching rule, 'Match by item name; unique substrings are ok', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool such as keep_uncheck_items.

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