kaiten_update_card_blocker

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that a blocker is updated, without explaining whether the update is partial, what fields are actually affected, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple CRUD update, though it is definitely on the terse side.

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?

With only three simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description plus schema provide enough to make a basic call. Missing are usage guidance and behavioral details such as partial-update semantics or permission requirements, which matter for a mutation with no annotations.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for card_id, blocker_id, and reason. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the resource ('a blocker on a card'), so the operation is clear. It doesn't add scope or explicitly contrast with sibling blocker CRUD tools, but the sentence plus tool name is enough to distinguish update from create/get/delete/list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus kaiten_create_card_blocker, kaiten_get_card_blocker, or kaiten_delete_card_blocker. The only cue is the word 'update' in the tool name; the description itself provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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