Replace card labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency, the destructive replace semantics (existing labels are dropped), the empty-array clearing behavior, and the cross-board validation constraint. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or what happens on an invalid id (error vs silent ignore), which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core replace semantics front-loaded, followed by the removal edge case and the id-sourcing constraint. Every sentence carries operational value with 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?

For a 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers semantics, edge cases, and preconditions well. The gaps are the return shape (does it return the updated card?) and permission requirements, which an agent might still need.

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 compensate for both params. It clarifies that 'labelIds' is a full replacement set (not additive), that empty is valid, and where ids come from ('the board view's top-level labels[]'). However, it never characterizes the 'id' parameter as the card id, leaving that to be inferred from context.

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 ('Replace the full set of label ids on a card') and immediately clarifies the replace-vs-append semantics, which distinguishes it from sibling kanbini_update_card. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (full replacement), an edge case ('Pass an empty array to remove all labels'), a precondition ('must belong to the card's board'), and routes to the correct sibling ('make a missing one with kanbini_create_label'). Nothing is left to inference.

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