put--v3-lists-list_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update a mailing list' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter usage, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer. For a tool with this level of responsibility, more context is needed.

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 43% (3 out of 7 parameters have descriptions), which is low. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'list_address' identifies, how updates are applied, or the semantics of fields like 'description' or 'name'. Since the schema partially documents parameters, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Update a mailing list' clearly states the action (update) and resource (mailing list), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling PUT tools like put--v3-lists-list_address-members-member_address or put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name, which also update resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 (e.g., needing an existing list), when not to use it, or compare it to related tools like post--v3-lists (create) or get--v3-lists-list_address (read). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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