Update Kanban profile description

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is declared structurally. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail: it writes 'redacted receipts,' which is useful peripheral-context. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'redacted receipts' means or what side effects accompany the update, leaving some ambiguity. Without annotating the receipt behavior, the description partially compensates but could go further.

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 dense sentence that efficiently conveys the verb, resource, effect, and a side-effect (redacted receipts). It's appropriately compact with no wasted words. Slightly more detail on receipts could push it higher, but it 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?

An output schema exists and coverage is high, so much is structurally specified. The 'redacted receipts' detail hints at an important behavior not otherwise disclosed. However, for a mutation wrapper, it doesn't describe auth requirements, potential outcomes, or error conditions. It's adequate given the strong schema but not rich enough to be considered complete.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (name, description). The description adds minimal param-level meaning beyond restating 'sets or clears a user-authored description' and mentioning redacted receipts. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't materially enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Typed PATCH /api/plugins/kanban/profiles/{name} wrapper') clearly stating it sets or clears a profile's description. It distinguishes the 'update/set/clear' action on profile description from siblings like hermes_kanban_profiles_list or hermes_kanban_link_create, though it could more explicitly differentiate from the many other update tools in the sibling list.

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 description indicates the tool is a PATCH wrapper and mentions setting or clearing description, which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't state explicit exclusions or mention alternatives (e.g., when to use a different profile-related tool). The implied context is clear enough for selecting this over list/get tools but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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