kaiten_update_card_external_linkUpdate the URL or caption of an external link on a Kaiten card to keep card references accurate and current.
Изменяет URL и/или подпись внешней ссылки карточки.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Новый URL | |
| card_id | Yes | ID карточки | |
| description | No | Новая подпись | |
| external_link_id | Yes | ID внешней ссылки |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'и/или' usefully signals that fields can be patched independently, but there is no mention of permissions, behavior when the link or card does not exist, whether omitted fields are preserved, or whether the change is reversible.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context is missing.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters is left with only one sentence. The schema covers field meanings, but nothing tells the agent what the call returns or what happens on a partial update, which is the main risk for an update operation.
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% and every parameter already documents itself ('Новый URL', 'Новая подпись', 'ID карточки', 'ID внешней ссылки'). The description's 'и/или' adds a small amount of optionality semantics but does not go beyond the schema's field-level documentation.
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 verb ('Изменяет') plus the resource ('внешней ссылки карточки') and names the mutable fields (URL, подпись). It is clearly distinct from the add/remove/list external-link siblings by virtue of being the update operation, though it never names them explicitly.
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 on when to use this instead of kaiten_add_card_external_link or kaiten_remove_card_external_link, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing link id. The only implied guidance is that the link must already exist, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.