update_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Returns the updated list' and the allowable values for pos ('top/bottom/number'), but omits details like idempotency, validation rules, or side effects. This is adequate but not thorough for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second lists parameters and return value. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (3 simple parameters, update operation) and the existence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the updated list'), the description covers the essentials. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., list existence) but is largely complete.

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%, so the description compensates by naming all three parameters and adding meaning for pos ('top/bottom/number'). However, it does not explain the format or constraints for list_id or name beyond their names. This adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 'Update a Trello list' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the updatable fields (name, pos) and distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_list or update_card, which have different actions or resources.

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 tells which parameters to provide (list_id, fields) but does not specify when to use update_list versus alternatives (e.g., archive_list). There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or context for effective use.

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