update_checkitem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only lists updatable fields and does not explain behavior such as partial update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved), required permissions, or response format. This is a significant gap for an update operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every word 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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description only lists the modifiable fields, omitting critical context about partial update behavior, required parameters, or how to remove values (though schema notes null for some fields). It is insufficient for a tool this complex.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely paraphrases the fields without examples or clarifications.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a checkitem on a checklist') and specifies the exact attributes that can be modified (name, state, position, due date, assigned member), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_checkitem or delete_checkitem.

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 ('Use this tool to modify...') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is adequate but lacks exclusions or sibling differentiation.

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