kaiten_update_card_external_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - it does not say whether 'changes' is a partial patch or a full replace, what happens to an existing description when only url is supplied, or what the destructive hint means in practice.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but at nine words it is under-specified rather than concise; there is room for a clarifying clause about the changes payload without bloat.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the tool is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested payload and zero schema descriptions. A single sentence is not enough for an agent to call it safely without guessing at update semantics.

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% and the tool has three required parameters, including a nested 'changes' object with 'url' and 'description' (the latter nullable). The description does not explain that changes is a partial-update payload, nor that a null description clears the field, so it fails to compensate for the complete absence of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a native external link on a card'), which distinguishes it from the sibling add/remove/list external-link tools. However, the word 'native' is unexplained and there is no explicit differentiation statement naming its siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus kaiten_add_card_external_link or kaiten_remove_card_external_link, nor any prerequisites such as needing the link_id from kaiten_list_card_external_links. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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