update_list

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=false, so the description enhances this by explaining that a type change to inactive is non-destructive and reversible ('keeps every card intact and reversible'). This adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits auth or side-effect details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded action, no wasted words. The inactive/retirement nuance earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious use case.

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 compact update tool, the description plus full schema cover the common usage. It lacks explicit guidance on result/return behavior, but an output schema exists, and the non-destructive retirement behavior is covered.

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 covers all four params (100%), and parameter-level descriptions are thorough, especially list_type with retired-stage semantics. The main description's mention of inactive duplicates schema text, so it doesn't add significant extra parameter meaning 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 opens with 'Rename a list or change its type,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the operation. It also distinguishes this from deletion by noting 'retiring a stage' keeps cards intact and reversible, setting it apart from sibling delete_list.

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 implies when to use this tool for metadata changes and explicitly addresses the retirement use case ('Retiring a stage is a type change...'). It does not name alternatives like delete_list, but the contrast with deletion is clear enough for correct selection.

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