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 meaningful nuance beyond them: "Replace" implies a full overwrite of the comment body rather than a partial edit. It does not mention permission requirements or irreversibility of the previous text.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the operation type is stated immediately. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three undocumented parameters, the description says nothing about permissions, side effects on the prior comment text, or the relationship between card_id and comment_id. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input side remains too thin.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not: card_id and comment_id are never explained, and it does not clarify that text is the complete replacement body subject to a minimum length. Only the "text" parameter is indirectly implied by the word "Replace".

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 ("the text of an existing comment"), which lets an agent distinguish it from kaiten_add_comment and kaiten_delete_comment without opening a schema. It does not explicitly mention that the comment lives on a card, but the resource is otherwise 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus kaiten_add_comment or kaiten_delete_comment, and no stated prerequisites such as needing the owning card_id or permission to edit the comment. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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