update-list-entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified attributes, error conditions, or response format. The example adds some context about stage values but doesn't cover behavioral traits adequately for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose with a helpful parenthetical example. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse while providing concrete context.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, nor does it explain how this tool relates to sibling operations. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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%, providing good documentation for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions stage changes as an example, which aligns with the 'stage' property in the schema but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('a list entry') with a specific example of changing stage values. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'update-record' by specifying it operates on list entries rather than general records. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools that might modify list data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with sibling tools like 'update-record', 'add-record-to-list', or 'remove-record-from-list' that might handle related operations. The example is helpful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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