update_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully specifies that status must be lowercase, color is hex, and icon is a HacknPlan icon name. However, it does not mention whether the update is partial or full, the effect of changing status on related work items, or any required permissions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 with three brief clarifications. Every sentence element serves a purpose: defining the operation, listing updatable attributes, and formatting constraints. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should offer more context. It covers status/color/icon well but omits the semantics of 'is_unblocker', whether partial updates are allowed, and any caveats about changing a stage that is in use. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, but the description compensates partially by explaining the status enum, color format, and providing icon examples. It does not clarify 'is_unblocker' or the exact interpretation of required parameters like 'name' beyond their obvious meaning, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 (update) with a clear resource (kanban stage) and enumerates the exact aspects that can be changed (re-name, re-color, re-icon, change status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_category or update_tag.

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_stage or update_board). The context is implied by the name and sibling list, but the description does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with other update tools.

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