trello_update_check_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the update action and the state usage, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or any other behavioral traits. Significant gaps remain 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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loading the purpose and a one-sentence usage hint. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It lists updatable fields but does not highlight the required parameters (cardId, checkItemId) or explain the relationship with checklists. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description merely lists some parameter names without adding new meaning. It provides a quick overview but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action (Update) and resource (check item on a card), and lists the specific attributes that can be updated (name, state, position, due date, member). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trello_create_check_item (create) and trello_get_check_item (read).

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 one usage hint ('Use state to check/uncheck items') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No comparison with siblings is given.

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