Modify the text of an existing kanban card by giving its board and card IDs. The column holding the card is found automatically, so you need not specify it.
Update card text. Automatically finds the column containing the card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The new card text | |
| cardId | Yes | The card identifier | |
| boardId | Yes | The board identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 add one genuinely useful trait: the column containing the card is resolved automatically, explaining why no column parameter is required. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or behavior when the card/board does not exist.
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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the auto-resolution note.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the auto-resolution behavior but omits failure modes, permissions, and return/confirmation behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 three parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the meaningful implication that text is the only mutable field and that column is auto-derived, but no format or constraint 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Update card text"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like move_card, delete_card, and create_card. It does not, however, explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as move_card or assign_card, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word "Update".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.