update_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that updates require lists:write scope, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens when only one optional field is provided, whether the operation replaces both fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful transparency 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the required scope. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 3-parameter tool with fully documented schema, the description covers the core purpose and permission requirement. However, the lack of partial-update behavior and absence of any output explanation leaves an agent uncertain about the effect of omitting optional fields, so it is not fully complete.

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 each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only restates that name and description are updatable, adding little beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Update) on a specific resource (a Slack List's metadata) and names the exact fields affected (name, description). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_list, delete_list, and especially update_list_item, which handles items rather than metadata.

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 the required OAuth scope but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_list_item or set_list_access. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool routing, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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