planka_update_list

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

The description only states the action ('rename and/or reorder') but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, error handling, or idempotency. With no annotations provided, the description fails to compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It directly states the supported operations (rename and reorder) and implies optional parameters. However, lacking annotations or additional behavioral details prevents a perfect score.

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 description summarizes the parameters (name and position) via 'rename and/or reorder,' but the schema already provides clear parameter descriptions. With 0% schema description coverage (as per context), the description adds minimal value; however, it correctly maps to the key parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('rename and/or reorder') with a clear resource ('board list'), directly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like planka_create_list (create) and planka_update_card (update card), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new list or updating a card). The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing the list_id or the intended workflow.

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