kaiten_update_comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful nuance — that the operation overwrites existing text rather than appending — but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or error cases.

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 well-formed sentence with the key action front-loaded and zero filler. It is tight, though arguably too terse given the tool's mutation nature.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. Still, for a destructive update on a comment, the absence of any permission or replacement-scope detail leaves a modest 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 description coverage is 0% across three required parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It gives no hint about card_id/comment_id scoping or the minLength=1 constraint on text, leaving the schema names to carry all meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('text of an existing comment'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like kaiten_add_comment and kaiten_delete_comment. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus kaiten_add_comment or kaiten_delete_comment, nor any prerequisites (e.g., ownership/permission to edit an existing comment). The agent must infer all usage context.

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