Update List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not disclose side effects such as reordering impacts, permission requirements, reversibility, or return values. 'Update' implies mutation, but no behavioral detail is provided beyond the stated fields.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 three-parameter update tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain return behavior, position semantics beyond the schema, or usage context. It is not dangerously incomplete, but it is not richly complete either.

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 listId, name, and pos. The description adds little beyond restating those fields, and the exact semantics of pos (top/bottom versus numeric index) remain ambiguous even with 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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('list'), and narrows the scope to name or position. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update_board or update_card, and from list mutations like archive_list or move_list_to_board.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions that would select update_list over other list-related operations. The intended use is only implied by the name and terse description.

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