update_checkitem_state_on_card

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the only behavior (updating state to complete/incomplete) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response handling. It is adequate but lacks additional context beyond the obvious.

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. The first states the action, and the second reinforces the use case. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's simplicity and the rich input schema, the description provides sufficient context for when and how to use it. It does not describe return values, but with no output schema and a simple state update, this is not a critical gap.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including an enum for 'state'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a checkitem's state on a card' and specifies the action as 'mark a checkitem as complete or incomplete.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'update_checkitem' tool, which likely handles other checkitem properties.

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 includes 'Use this tool to mark a checkitem as complete or incomplete,' which clearly indicates the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it misses the top tier.

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