update_checklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description simply says 'Update an existing checklist' without detailing permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response behavior. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap, similar to the under-transparent update_drive example.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and primary usage.

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 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It clearly indicates the main use case (name/position updates), but it does not address potential conflicts with sibling tools, the presence of response-control parameters, or expected return values, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context by mentioning 'name or position,' which maps to the 'name' and 'pos' parameters, but it does not explain the response-related parameters (fields, detailLevel) or provide deeper semantics beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing checklist with new properties' and specifies that it modifies a checklist's name or position. This is a clear verb+resource combination, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_checklist_name and update_checklist_position, which are more specific.

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 on when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to modify a checklist's name or position.' However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of the more specific sibling tools, so it lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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