Обновить карточку

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior, but for a mutation tool with 11 parameters it does not mention permission requirements, side effects of changing owner/responsible/lane, reversibility, or error behavior.

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 waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the partial-update instruction. Every sentence earns 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?

This is a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too thin for that complexity: it omits what happens to omitted fields, authorization requirements, and the consequences of changing ownership or location fields.

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 100%, so all parameters already have field-level documentation. The description adds the useful semantic rule that only fields to be changed should be passed, but it does not supplement per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Обновляет поля карточки' (updates card fields). It does not differentiate this tool from sibling mutation tools such as kaiten_move_card, even though the schema includes lane_id, board_id, and column_id fields that overlap with moving a card.

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 instruction 'Передавайте только те поля, которые нужно изменить' gives useful partial-update guidance, implying usage for selective field changes. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kaiten_move_card or kaiten_update_card_external_link, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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