alexa_update_list_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the substantial behavioral fact that the tool is gated by user confirmation, with two distinct flows (client-side elicitation vs. a preview + confirmToken two-step) and an external policy reference (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). It also discloses the destruction-free semantics of un-checking ('mark active again').

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, purpose front-loaded, then the confirmation requirement. Dense but every clause carries information; the trailing '(see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE)' is a compact pointer rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what the two-phase confirmation returns (a preview plus confirmToken) and what the caller must do with it. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, and the schema itself already explains item addressing, list targets, and the full confirmToken contract, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'by its name or item id' and the confirmToken flow largely restates what the schema documents rather than adding new syntax or edge cases.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (check off / un-check) on a specific resource (an item on an Alexa shopping or to-do list) and identifies both addressing modes (name or id). An agent can distinguish this from alexa_add_list_item, alexa_remove_list_item and alexa_get_list_items without opening any 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?

Clearly states the use context and points at alexa_get_list_items as the source of item ids for the 'item' and list arguments. It does not explicitly rule out the nearby alternatives (adding or removing an item, or reading the list), so the 'when not to use' case is left implicit rather than stated.

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