Update list settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that wipLimit is NOT enforced for writes ("check the card count yourself before adding"), that switching sortMode back to "manual" freezes the sorted order, that cardDensity can be overridden per card via kanbini_update_card, and that visibleCardLimit is display-only because kanbini_get_board returns every card. These are exactly the non-obvious side effects an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then one clause per field, so it is easy to scan despite its length; the length is justified by seven distinct patch fields. The final palette sentence partly restates the `color` schema description, which is the only sentence that does not fully earn 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?

A nested-patch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, where the description supplies the missing safety and side-effect context (non-enforcement of WIP, display-only limits, sort-freeze behavior). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be absent.

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, and it documents every patch property: what `name` does, that null clears `color`, the wipLimit integer/null semantics, all nine sortMode values with their ordering meaning, onEnter's trigger condition and null-to-remove behavior, and the 1-1000 range of visibleCardLimit. This is meaning well beyond the raw enum lists 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Patch a list (column)") and then enumerates exactly which settings can be patched, so an agent knows the scope without opening the schema. It also names the two siblings that own adjacent operations (kanbini_move_list, kanbini_archive_list), making it distinguishable from them.

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 routes two common confusions to alternatives: "To reorder lists use kanbini_move_list; to hide one use kanbini_archive_list." It also constrains the display fields with "Change them only when the user asks." It stops short of a general statement of when this tool should be chosen over kanbini_update_board or kanbini_update_card, but the field-level guidance is clear.

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