update_list_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Returns: The updated item details,' but omits whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial patch vs. full replace), what happens if itemId or listId is invalid, and the fact that idempotentHint=false despite status updates being naturally repeatable.

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?

Purpose leads, use cases follow, parameters and return value are clearly sectioned — easy to scan. The parameter block duplicates the schema almost verbatim, so a sentence of that space is not earning 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operations, the parameters, and the return value, and annotations handle the safety profile. Remaining gaps — partial-update semantics, section ordering, and error behavior — are real but secondary.

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 baseline is 3; the parameter list in the description largely restates the schema. It does usefully gloss status ('completed' to check off, 'pending' to uncheck), but it drops the schema's note that section=null removes the item from its section, which is a meaningful loss of detail.

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 plus the three concrete mutations it supports (mark complete, rename, move to section), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_list_item, delete_list_item, and update_list.

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 three concrete user utterances that map directly to invocations, which is strong positive guidance. It does not, however, name the alternatives (e.g., delete_list_item for removal, update_list for list-level changes), so the agent must infer when not to use it.

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