Update Card Blocker

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-readonly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the irreversibility of releasing a blocker, the need for a separate endpoint for release, and the preflight ownership check. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Four tight sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, limitations are stated directly, and the source for blockerId is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation context: which fields are mutable, which endpoint handles release, the irreversible nature of release, ownership preflight, and ID provenance. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating which fields are updatable (reason, blockerCardId, dueDate, dueDateTimePresent), and by clarifying that released is not a settable field here. This meaningfully supplements the schema without repeating every property detail.

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 starts with 'Patch an existing blocker', giving a specific verb and resource. It names the updatable fields and explicitly distinguishes itself from the release endpoint, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from kaiten_add_card_blocker and kaiten_release_card_blocker.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Cannot set released — that's a separate endpoint, use kaiten_release_card_blocker' and 'Cannot un-release — once released:true, no API path back.' It also tells the agent where to get blockerId, making invocation conditions clear.

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