kaiten_update_card

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

Annotations already flag it as destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value that annotations cannot express: partial-update semantics, the null-clears convention, and the Markdown handling of the description field. It stops short of saying which fields actually accept null, leaving that ambiguous.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the update semantics, and a formatting note. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 not be explained. However, for a destructive mutation with a nested changes object and zero schema descriptions, the definition omits which fields can be nulled, permission requirements, and how the change set interplays with siblings like kaiten_set_card_properties.

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% and the nested changes object exposes six properties with no inline documentation, yet the description only clarifies that the description field takes Markdown. card_id, the individual change fields, and the format for due_date/due_date_time_present are left entirely to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Update) and resource (card fields), which distinguishes it from siblings like kaiten_create_card, kaiten_move_card and kaiten_archive_card. It does not, however, contrast its scope with kaiten_set_card_properties, the closest sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary between core card fields and custom properties.

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 gives useful update semantics (omitted fields unchanged, null clears supported fields) but no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or naming of alternatives such as kaiten_set_card_properties or kaiten_move_card for the cases this tool does not cover. Usage is only implied.

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