kaiten_set_card_properties

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: merge semantics ('omitted properties remain unchanged'), explicit null-clears-a-value destructive behavior, and the read-only nature of definitions. This meaningfully extends beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then merge/null semantics, then value formats, then a read-only caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the mutation model, partial-update behavior, and payload formats, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Only the lack of guidance on sourcing valid property IDs/options keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does: it explains the id_<propertyId> key pattern for the properties object and enumerates accepted value shapes (scalar text/number, select ID arrays, catalog string ID, directory UUID arrays, date object with date/time/tzOffset). card_id is left unexplained but is self-evident and validated in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set existing card properties', and the id_<propertyId> key convention makes clear it operates on custom properties rather than core card fields. It doesn't explicitly name or route against siblings like kaiten_update_card, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Set existing card properties', and 'Definitions and options are read-only' hints that property metadata must come from elsewhere. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as kaiten_list_custom_properties for discovering valid IDs.

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