update_checklist_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so mutation is covered. The description confirms the write and adds the user-confirmation guidance, which is genuinely useful. However, it never explains the destructiveHint=True implication (e.g. that assignee/deadline can be cleared or overwritten) or how the clear_* flags behave.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and field list before the behavioral instruction. Nothing is padded, though the confirmation sentence could be integrated more tightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 9-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the clear_* flags and deadline_type unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It names only the four obvious fields (text, checked, assignee, deadline) and omits the non-obvious ones an agent would most likely get wrong: deadline_type, clear_assignee, and clear_deadline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Изменить один пункт чек-листа') and enumerates the editable fields (text, completion, assignee, deadline), so an agent can tell it apart from create/delete checklist siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_issue, which it references only loosely ('Изменяет задачу').

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?

Adds one concrete behavioral guideline — show the changes to the user before calling — which implies a confirmation workflow, but it names no alternatives (e.g. update_issue vs this tool) and gives no when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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