vk_post_projects_4bd6e2576c36

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication and that it is a raw proxy, but it also misleadingly states the body field is 'optional' while the schema requires it. This internal contradiction reduces trust in the tool's behavior.

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 concise and logically structured, starting with the purpose, then the endpoint, then usage notes. It repeats 'update' in the first and third sentences, but this is minor; overall every sentence carries useful information without 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain inputs, outputs, and side effects. It covers input handling and authentication but omits any description of the response format or error cases, and the optional/required contradiction leaves a notable 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable context about the body being a JSON payload and path/query parameters being top-level. However, the false claim that the body is optional contradicts the schema's required flag, which is a significant semantic error that would mislead an agent.

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 tool updates an existing kanban bucket, with a specific REST endpoint (POST /projects/{projectID}/views/{view}/buckets/{bucketID}). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target different resources or operations.

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 gives practical invocation details (JSON payload in body, top-level path/query parameters, camelCase/snake_case aliases, authentication required) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it to other update tools.

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