Aendert Werte eines bestehenden Eintrags. "values" enthaelt nur die zu aendernden Felder (Schluessel = Feldname oder Feld-ID); nicht genannte Felder bleiben unveraendert.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | ||
| entry_id | Yes | ||
| tracker_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the key partial-update behavior (only specified fields change). However, it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, idempotency, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool. The description provides some transparency but misses several critical aspects.
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 then explains the key parameter semantics. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.
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 moderate-complexity tool with three parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core update behavior and the values parameter. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or any side effects beyond the partial update, and it could be clearer about how field IDs are resolved. Given the lack of annotations, these details would enhance completeness, but the current description is still sufficient for basic 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 description must explain parameters. It does an excellent job for the 'values' parameter, clarifying that keys are field names or IDs and that only these fields change. Tracker_id and entry_id are self-explanatory from their names and schema, but the description does not need to elaborate. It adds significant semantic value for the most complex parameter.
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's function: 'Aendert Werte eines bestehenden Eintrags' (Changes values of an existing entry) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_board, update_card, and update_tracker by targeting entries specifically.
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 clear usage guidance: 'values' contains only the fields to be changed, and fields not mentioned remain unchanged. This implies it is for partial updates, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (board, column, card, tracker, field, entry) with no overlapping purposes. Even closely related operations like add_card vs add_entry operate on different entity types.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_board, add_card, delete_entry, update_tracker). The mix of 'create' for top-level entities and 'add' for sub-entities is a minor deviation but still predictable.
24 tools is somewhat high but well-justified given the server covers two resource families (boards and trackers) with full lifecycle operations. Each tool has a clear role in the overall surface.
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD coverage for boards, columns, cards, trackers, and entries. The main gap is the lack of an update_field tool, but this can be worked around by deleting and recreating fields.