update_checklist

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that items are never deleted and must be reopened, and that only held or unclaimed tasks are mutable. Annotations already indicate non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description enriches this with concrete policies. No contradiction.

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 use case and benefit, followed by constraints. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. It is efficiently structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Despite the tool having 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core workflow (add, complete, reopen) and key constraints. It does not mention the ability to assign owners or set dependencies, but those are well-documented in the schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, the description is largely adequate for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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?

All 6 parameters have clear schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on overall purpose. While it implicitly references add/complete/reopen, it does not elaborate on assign_items or depends_on_tasks, which are covered in 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 is for breaking tasks into checklist steps and tracking progress. It uses the verb 'break' and 'tick off', explicitly describing the resource (checklist steps on a task). The description distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_task_details by focusing on sub-item management.

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 a usage constraint ('Only tasks you hold, or unclaimed ones, can be changed') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tool directly competes for checklist management, the guidance is implied but not explicit. Missing when-not or alternative naming.

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