shared_lists_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates a list, but does not mention whether the update is a full replacement or a merge, whether it is destructive, what permissions are required, what happens if the list does not exist, or the return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids verbosity and is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool. However, it could have included more context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has a nested 'config' object with no schema description of its contents, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent would not know what fields or structure 'config' should have, how the update behaves (e.g., replaces or merges), or what the response will be. The description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation, especially in relation to the shared_lists family.

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 100% as both 'name' and 'config' have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond restating that identification is by name, which is already in the schema. According to the guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'node plugin shared list', and explicitly notes identification by name. This differentiates it from sibling tools like shared_lists_create, shared_lists_delete, and shared_lists_sync, which have distinct purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shared_lists_create or shared_lists_delete. It does not state prerequisites, when an update is appropriate, or when not to use it. The only hint is the word 'update', which implies modification of an existing list, but this is not explicit.

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