update_list

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

Annotations already show this is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds clear behavioral context by stating that changing type to inactive keeps cards intact and is reversible, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It also implicitly states renaming and reordering are safe operations.

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, zero waste. Every word serves a purpose. The description is front-loaded with the primary actions and concludes with a clarifying example. There are no redundant or filler phrases.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 2 required, and 100% schema coverage plus an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the main actions (rename, type change) and highlights a key behavioral nuance (inactivating is reversible). It could optionally mention that reordering is also supported, but 'change its type' implies multiple modifications are possible, so this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the special meaning of 'inactive' for list_type and mentions that reordering preserves cards, but the other parameters (name, after, color) are adequately explained in the schema descriptions. No new semantics are added for those.

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 renames a list or changes its type with specific verb+resource ('Rename a list or change its type'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_list' and 'delete_list' and adds a concrete example of what changing type to 'inactive' means.

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 gives explicit context for one use case ('Retiring a stage is a type change to inactive'), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_list' (destructive) or 'update_project' (more broad). No when-not-to-use advice is given.

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