Update a checklist

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., no mention of side effects, permissions, or rate limits). It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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 brief and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Examples). While efficient, it could be more concise by merging the examples into the parameter descriptions.

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 mutation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary information: what the tool does, the parameters, and usage examples. However, it omits return value or error handling expectations.

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%, but the 'Args' section restates parameters with types and constraints, and the examples illustrate real usage (e.g., referencing a checklist by ObjectId). This adds practical meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Update title or position of a checklist on a card,' specifying the verb (update), resource (checklist), and scope (on a card). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_checklist' (creation) and 'update_card' (different resource).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if the intent is to reorder tasks, use 'move_task'). While the sibling context provides differentiation, the description itself does not preempt misuse.

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