checkvist_update_checklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or full, whether authentication is required, what happens to omitted fields, or the nature of the response. This is insufficient transparency for an update operation.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specifying. It doesn't add value beyond the tool name, making it short but not appropriately informative. It's concise in length but not in substance.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse for reliable tool selection and invocation. It doesn't mention side effects, return values, or partial-update behavior. Sibling tools cover a broad domain, and this description is notably incomplete for an update operation.

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%—all three parameters (name, public, checklist_id) have descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 an existing checklist' essentially restates the tool name 'checkvist_update_checklist'. It provides no additional specificity about what fields can be updated (e.g., name, public) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling update tools beyond the resource type, which is already evident from the name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_checklist, delete_checklist, or other update tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or 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.