kaiten_add_card_child

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'Add', implying mutation without explaining idempotency, permissions, whether an existing child relationship is replaced, or what happens on failure. It adds little beyond the schema.

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. Every word carries meaning and it is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple and fully parameter-documented, so an agent can assemble a call from the schema alone. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description omits behavioral context such as return values, required permissions, or relationship constraints, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 100% and both parameters are clearly labeled as parent and child IDs. The description only restates the relationship without adding format, constraints, or ordering semantics.

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 clear action ('Add') and resource ('child card' to 'a given card'), and the child/parent direction distinguishes it from sibling tools like kaiten_add_card_parent and kaiten_remove_card_child.

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 choose this over closely related sibling tools (e.g., kaiten_add_card_parent, kaiten_remove_card_child) or any prerequisites such as whether the child card must already exist. Usage is only implied by the name and one-line description.

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