yougile_update_column

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

The description mentions soft-delete and moving between boards, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). However, it does not disclose the consequences of these actions (e.g., whether tasks are moved with the column, or if soft-delete hides the column from normal queries). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists the update options concisely. There is no redundant or superfluous text.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description provides basic functional coverage but omits important contextual details such as the response format, the effects of soft-delete or board moves on associated tasks, or whether any parameters are required (only 'id' is required per schema). This is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description essentially repeats the same capabilities listed in the schema (title, color, board, soft-delete) without adding new semantic meaning or context. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('a column'), and enumerates specific updatable attributes (title, color, move to another board, soft-delete). This makes it unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling update tools for other resources like projects or boards.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing column, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternates (e.g., yougile_create_column or yougile_delete_column) nor provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is clear but not formally differentiated from alternatives.

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