Add a step to a checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return value (I01-style id), the effect on sign-off (required steps block sign-off, optional ones do not), and the insertion behavior (position parameter, existing steps keep ids). It doesn't mention error cases or whether the operation is reversible, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and outcome, then a concise explanation of the required/optional distinction. No wasted words.

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 tool with 6 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, what it returns, and the key semantic distinction (required vs optional). It could mention error conditions or id format details, but the core is 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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds context about the return id and the sign-off semantics of required, but doesn't add much beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add'), a resource ('one step to a checklist'), and the key outcome ('return its I01-style id'). It also names the fields involved (text, optional section heading, required flag), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like checklist_item_remove and checklist_create.

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 implies when to use this tool: to add a single step to a checklist, with optional section heading and required flag. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the context clear. The behavior of required vs optional steps is explained, which helps an agent decide whether to set required=true.

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