update_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It accurately states 'Update' (implying mutation) and specifies the return value ('Returns: The updated list details'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., partial overwrites, whether changes are reversible), permission requirements, or behavior when multiple identifiers are supplied. It is not misleading, but gaps remain.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, usage bullets, parameter list, and return statement. It is front-loaded and reasonably compact. Slight redundancy exists because parameter details are repeated from the schema, but the added alternative-ID note justifies the length. No waste sentences.

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 fairly complete: it defines the action, usage cases, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not address edge cases like required fields (all optional) or conflicts if both listId and listName are provided, but these are not critical for basic usage. Given the relative simplicity of the tool, this is adequate.

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?

The schema covers all 5 parameters with basic descriptions, but the description adds extra value: it notes listName as an alternative to listId, suggests using get_lists to find IDs, and clarifies the meaning of 'label' as the new name. This compensates for the schema's minimal descriptions and provides operational guidance beyond the structured data.

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 action: 'Update an existing list's name or settings.' It names the resource (list) and the specific operations (rename, change type/color), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_chore or update_calendar_event. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 a dedicated 'Use this when' section with three concrete scenarios: renaming, changing type, or changing color. This is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_list for new lists), so it misses the 'when-not' aspect for a top score.

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