Update an existing Accelo checklist by ID, replacing items with revised titles and ordering; optionally return additional fields.
Update an existing checklist.
Args: id: Checklist ID (required) items: Updated array of items. Each: {"title": "...", "ordering": 0} fields: Additional fields to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| items | No | ||
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says 'Update' but does not explain whether omitted items are preserved, whether items replace the full list, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur.
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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses a compact Args list. Every sentence and argument entry is relevant with no wasted prose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains basic parameters but omits update semantics, return behavior, and permission or side-effect context needed to call it safely.
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 documents all three parameters: id as required, items as an updated array with an example object shape, and fields as additional fields to return, though fields remains somewhat vague.
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 states a specific verb and resource: update an existing checklist. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete checklist operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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?
It implies the tool is used when a checklist already exists, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as get_checklist or create_checklist. Similar to the calibration MID case, this is minimal usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.