kaiten_update_checklist_itemUpdates the text or completion status of a checklist item on a Kaiten card, so you can correct item wording or mark it done or undone.
Изменяет текст и/или статус (выполнен) пункта чек-листа.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Новый текст | |
| card_id | Yes | ID карточки | |
| checked | No | Отметить выполненным/невыполненным | |
| item_id | Yes | ID пункта | |
| checklist_id | Yes | ID чек-листа |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden and does not meet it. It never states required permissions, whether omitted fields are left untouched or reset, whether 'checked' sets or toggles the state, or what the response contains — for a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the card/checklist/item relationship constraints, permission requirements, and any indication of the result. Only the two optional-field semantics surface.
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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the ID hierarchy. The description only restates that text and checked are the mutable ones, adding nothing the schema lacks — the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Изменяет') plus the resource ('пункт чек-листа') and the two mutable aspects (text, checked status). This cleanly separates it from the add/delete checklist-item siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 'и/или' (and/or) construction signals that partial updates are allowed, which is real usage information. Beyond that the agent must infer that this applies only to existing items and gets no guidance on when to prefer this over delete + re-add, or on any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.