Edit a checklist item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key PATCH-like trait that unspecified fields are left untouched. It says nothing about whether the update is reversible, what happens with an unknown id, or permission requirements, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

One compact sentence with the mutability constraint front-loaded, followed by the omission rule. No filler and no repeated schema content.

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 small 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the editing surface but omits id semantics, error behavior, and the relationship to the toggle sibling required to disambiguate overlapping functionality.

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 does explain that text and completed are optional edits, but never clarifies that id is the checklist item identifier (as opposed to a card or checklist id), which is the most error-prone parameter here.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (checklist item) plus the exact fields affected (text, completed), which is far better than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling kanbini_toggle_checklist_item, which also sets completed, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to prefer.

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?

'Omit what you do not want to change' gives clear partial-update guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this versus kanbini_toggle_checklist_item (ticking) or kanbini_move_checklist_item, nor any prerequisites such as the item needing to exist.

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