update_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Update', which implies mutation, but doesn't describe side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if conflicting values are provided. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant omission.

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?

A single, compact sentence that lists the modifiable attributes efficiently. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, and wastes no words. The structure is clean, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 6 parameters and full schema descriptions, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits context like the fact that board_id and column_id are required, whether updates are partial or full replacements, or the absence of an output schema. For an update tool with no annotations, it provides the core purpose but not enough to fully guide invocation in edge cases.

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 schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain each. It does add a synonym ('position' for the sort_order parameter) which aids interpretation. However, it doesn't clarify any interdependencies or constraints beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clear verb ('Update') and specifies the resource ('a column') along with the exact attributes it can modify (title, type, position, WIP limit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_columns, create_column, and delete_column, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. It's direct and unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing column), what happens if fields are omitted, or how it relates to other column operations. The agent must infer that 'update' means modifying an existing column, but there's no explicit context or exclusions.

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