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 behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether updates require specific permissions, whether archiving via closed=true is reversible, or whether the authenticated user must own the list. Only the set of mutable fields is disclosed, which is minimal.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the capability list front-loaded and the sibling routing packed into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and alternative routing but omits permissions, reversibility of archiving, and any indication of what the response returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 listId. The description names the same fields (name, archive, subscription, board) without adding format, constraint, or precedence details beyond the schema, so 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 (update) and resource (list) and enumerates exactly what can be changed: name, archive state, subscription state, board. It also names the sibling update_list_position and the condition that selects it, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes reordering within a board to update_list_position, and the idBoard parameter implicitly covers cross-board moves. However, it gives no guidance on prerequisites (permissions, subscription ownership, whether listId must exist) or when archiving is preferred over deleting.

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