Update List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys the core mutation intent and the valid type values, but it does not disclose side effects of changing type to 'closed', empty-string/default behavior, permissions, or reversibility.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the key field constraints ('active' or 'closed') into a compact form. There is no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter update with an output schema, the description covers the mutable fields and type values, and the output schema can explain return values. However, given no annotations, it omits usage boundaries and side-effect context, leaving an agent to infer behavior such as empty defaults or consequences of closing a list.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that `name` and `type` are updatable fields and gives explicit legal values for `type`, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not discuss the required `id` or default-empty semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('a list'), and exactly which fields are affected ('name and/or type'), while also giving the allowed type values ('active' or 'closed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/get/delete list tools.

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 that this tool is for modifying an existing list's name or activity status, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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