trello_update_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a list' implies a mutation operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 'Update a list' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, direct sentence. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects such as what the update entails, potential side effects, or what the return value might be. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for list_id, name, and pos parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it lacks details on parameter usage or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 'Update a list' states the basic action and resource but is vague. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'list', which distinguishes it from siblings like create, delete, or get operations, but lacks detail on what aspects are updated (e.g., name, position). This is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity compared to more specific descriptions.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a list ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like trello_update_board or trello_update_card. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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