tasks_tasklists_update

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that only supplied fields change, which clarifies that omitted fields are preserved. This is useful partial-update semantics beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 filler. Every word contributes: "Update" states the action, "a task list" states the resource, and the parenthetical adds critical partial-update behavior.

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 two-parameter update tool, the description plus schema and annotations are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly: the required tasklist ID and optional title are documented, and partial-update behavior is stated. No return value is described, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, with both `title` and `tasklist` already documented in the schema. The description's "only supplied fields change" adds useful context for how optional parameters behave, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: "Update a task list", which clearly identifies the operation. It also adds the partial-update qualifier "only supplied fields change", distinguishing it from a full overwrite. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tasks_tasklists_insert or tasks_tasklists_delete, but the resource and action are 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?

The description implies this tool is used to update an existing task list rather than create or delete one, reinforced by "only supplied fields change". However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to alternative sibling tools such as tasks_tasklists_insert or tasks_tasklists_delete.

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