Rename Column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool mutates a column, but it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, reversibility, or behavior when only some metadata fields are provided.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase — 'Rename', 'update metadata', 'column', 'by id' — adds necessary disambiguation.

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 mutating tool with four parameters, no annotations, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description leaves too much to inference. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics and behavioral caveats remain incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'id' and 'metadata' but does not map to the actual parameters name, wipLimit, orderIndex, or explain that all are optional beyond columnId. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently supply correct values.

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 action — 'Rename or update metadata' — on a specific resource, 'a column', addressed 'by id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kanban_create_column and kanban_delete_column.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing column identified by id, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage must be inferred from the wording and sibling names rather than being directly guided.

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