update_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and directly states the modifiable fields. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral context, detailed parameter guidance, and usage guidelines. The output schema may help with return values, but the description doesn't reference it or provide enough standalone information for confident use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'name, description, or privacy', which maps to three of the four parameters (name, description, private), but doesn't explain the 'list_id' parameter or provide any syntax, format, or constraints. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the required 'list_id'.

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') and target resource ('a list'), along with specific fields that can be modified ('name, description, or privacy'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_list' or 'delete_list' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-related tools like 'pin_list' or 'follow_list'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing list), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new lists), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_list' for initial creation or 'get_list' for viewing. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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