Update a checklist item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists the update actions, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key actions without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

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?

The description covers what the tool does but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., must have the correct IDs), return values, or how the optional parameters can be combined. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by grouping the three core actions (state, name, pos) and explaining they correspond to marking complete/incomplete, renaming, and repositioning. This provides a quick operational summary 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates a check item on a card, listing three specific operations: marking complete/incomplete, renaming, and repositioning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_checklist_item (creation) or delete_checklist (deletion).

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 usage for updating existing check items, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use. The context of sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks such instructions.

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