x_api_update_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is mutating and high-risk, lists required OAuth scopes, describes auth resolution behavior via tenant/user/account scopes, notes common failure conditions (rate limits, auth failures, missing credentials), and includes a safety warning to validate scope/payload before use. This is exceptional detail for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. It contains useful details without excessive prose. Minor redundancy exists: 'Use when: Update List' repeats the first line, and 'Risk: mutating' overlaps with the safety warning section. Overall, the structure makes the content scannable and the length is justified.

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?

The description is quite comprehensive for a tool with no output schema or annotations: it covers expected response shape, common failures, permissions, auth resolution, and provides an example call. It does not mention the requirement that the authenticated user must own the list being updated, which is an important context gap. Despite that, it is far above a minimal viable description.

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 clarifies id is a required path parameter, body is the payload, and explains scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId plus credentialKey roles. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explained, and body semantics are only vaguely described as 'the documented request payload'. This is partial but not complete coverage of the 8 parameters.

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 'Update List', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. While it essentially restates the tool name, the subsequent parameter and response details confirm this is about updating an existing X list by ID. It distinguishes from create/delete/get list tools by the 'Update' verb, though it doesn't elaborate on exactly what updatable fields are supported.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, noting that exploration should go through x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion and that auth/config tools may be needed first. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative list operations like create/delete, relying instead on the tool naming convention.

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