set_card_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: fields left out are kept and new commits are appended rather than replacing the existing set. It stops short of covering permissions, error behavior, or reversibility, so it is strong but not complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The inventory of recordable fields comes first and the merge rule follows, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral gap (merge semantics). It does not describe what the call returns or what happens on failure, and with no output schema present the agent gets no substitute for that, leaving a modest 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the commit parameter by clarifying that commits are additive, adding marginal value without introducing new format or syntax details.

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 names a specific verb and resource: recording development-work metadata (repository path, branch, commits, push state, PR link) against a card. That scoping clearly separates it from card-content tools like update_card or assign_card, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 merge sentence implies this is a partial-update tool you can call repeatedly as work progresses, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus update_card, nor any stated preconditions beyond the schema note that branch is required the first time.

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