Edit an existing custom checklist template by changing its name, description, or checklist items.
Edit an existing custom checklist template (update name, description, or checklist items).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Updated template name | |
| items | No | Updated list of items | |
| templateId | Yes | The UUID of the template to edit | |
| description | No | Updated description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden: it doesn't say whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether 'items' replaces the entire item list or merges, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage these are material gaps.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the field list as a compact parenthetical. No waste, though it could have used the space for behavioral detail instead of repeating field names.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain replace-vs-merge behavior for 'items', partial-update semantics, and side effects or return. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it with confidence on the riskiest parameter.
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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the parenthetical merely restates the same three updatable fields. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no semantics beyond the 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?
States a specific verb (edit) and resource (existing custom checklist template), plus the fields that can change, which separates it from create_template and get_template. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
'Edit an existing ... template' implies a template must already exist (templateId required), so usage is inferable. It never explicitly says when to use this versus create_template, or what preconditions (ownership, template type) apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.