planka_update_custom_field_group

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

The description indicates an update (mutation) but provides no details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or atomicity. With no annotations, the burden falls entirely on the description, which falls short.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient but lacks structure. While it is not verbose, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, earning a middle score.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior. It does not cover return values, constraints, or typical usage patterns, making it incomplete for the complexity level.

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?

Despite the schema having parameter descriptions, the tool description itself only mentions 'name and/or position', omitting the required 'custom_field_group_id' and optional 'response_format'. With 0% schema description coverage (as per context), the description should compensate but fails to explain all parameters clearly.

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 clearly states it updates a custom field group's name and/or position, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete custom field group, which is a minor gap.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_custom_field_group, delete_custom_field_group). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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