update_lane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that certain fields can be updated but does not mention behavioral aspects such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, authentication requirements, potential side effects, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the action and lists the updatable fields. There is no unnecessary wording, making it optimally brief and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain whether the update is partial (only provided fields are updated) or requires all fields, what the return value indicates, or any constraints like requiring at least one updatable field. For a mutation tool, this level of incompleteness hampers an agent's ability to call it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'New title', 'WIP limit', 'Position'). The description merely echoes these field names without adding nuance like optionality, defaults, constraints on requiring at least one updatable field, or how the identifiers (board_id, lane_id) are used. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'lane', and enumerates the specific fields that can be modified ('title, position, or WIP limit'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lane and delete_lane, and also covers all mutable fields present in the schema (title, sort_order, wip_limit).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where other tools (e.g., moving cards vs updating lanes) should be preferred, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it is for updating lanes, but this is not made explicit.

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