ah_check_favorite_list_itemMark an item as collected or uncollected in a favorite list by setting its checked status with the list and item IDs.
Tick an item off as collected (checked=true) or un-tick it in a favorite list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checked | No | true to check, false to uncheck | |
| item_id | Yes | Item ID | |
| list_id | Yes | Favorite list ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state without destroying it. The description adds the toggle semantics ('as collected', checked=true/false), but says nothing about idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects on the surrounding list.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core verb/action is front-loaded. Slightly loose phrasing ('tick off as collected') is the only minor cost.
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?
With 3 fully-documented params there is little risk of mis-invocation, but there is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say what the toggle returns or whether the change is reflected immediately. Auth/session expectations from ah_login are also unstated.
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% and each parameter is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's checked=true/false phrasing duplicates the schema's own 'true to check, false to uncheck' wording and adds no new meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb pair (tick off / un-tick) and the resource (an item in a favorite list), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like ah_get_favorite_lists or ah_add_to_shopping_list, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the description conveys that this tool toggles an item's collected state, which implies when it applies, but it never says when to choose it over ah_get_favorite_lists or how it relates to list-mutating siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.