update_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the updated list details, but for a mutation with zero required parameters it never explains what happens if neither listId nor listName is supplied, nor whether unmentioned fields are preserved (partial vs. full update).

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by scannable bullet lists for usage, parameters, and return value. Slightly verbose in restating schema field descriptions (e.g. 'label: New name for the list'), but nothing is wasteful or buried.

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?

Covers the operation, its triggers, every parameter, ID discovery, and the return shape, which is sufficient for a 5-param flat-object mutation. The one omission is the identifier requirement — with required_parameters=0 the agent is left guessing whether an update with only 'color' is valid.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by stating that listName is an alternative to listId and by pointing to get_lists as the way to obtain IDs — practical guidance the schema does not contain. The per-field restatements (label, kind, color) largely duplicate the schema and its enum.

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 and resource ('Update an existing list') plus the exact mutable surface (name or settings: type, color). An agent can distinguish it from create_list, delete_list, and update_list_item without opening any schema, since the target is the list container rather than its items.

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 'Use this when' block gives two concrete triggers (renaming, changing type/color) and routes the agent to get_lists for ID discovery. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or how it relates to update_list_item, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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