kaiten_update_card

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 disclosing behavior. It mostly restates schema facts: condition=2 is already documented as archived, and column_id/board_id are already described as 'Move to column/board.' It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether null clears fields, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently highlights the two most non-obvious use cases.

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?

The rich schema fully documents all parameters, which compensates for much of the missing parameter context. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important behavioral context implicit, such as update semantics, required permissions, and return value expectations. For a 27-parameter mutation tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage across 27 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's archive and move hints add no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for condition, column_id, and board_id.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Kaiten card.' This clearly distinguishes it from card creation, deletion, retrieval, and listing operations, and the added hints about archiving and moving further clarify its scope among many sibling tools.

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 provides actionable guidance for common sub-operations: 'Use condition=2 to archive, set column_id/board_id to move.' This gives clear context for when to use these parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like kaiten_archive_card or kaiten_move_card or state when those dedicated tools should be preferred.

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