kaiten_recalculate_sla

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reveal two important behavioral traits: the operation is asynchronous and returns a job_id to track progress. However, it does not disclose side effects on existing measurements, whether the operation mutates data, prerequisites (e.g., the SLA being attached to cards), or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action and its async nature are front-loaded, and the job_id return contract follows immediately. Every word contributes information.

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?

Adequate for a one-parameter tool — it states the action and the return contract — but it does not point to kaiten_get_compute_job as the mechanism for tracking the returned job_id, and the SLA-type ambiguity remains unresolved. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would close the loop.

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% — sla_id is already documented as an SLA ID UUID — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and, notably, does not resolve which SLA concept sla_id refers to, given the API distinguishes sla_rule, card_sla, and sd_sla entities.

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 ('trigger'), a specific resource ('recalculation of SLA measurements'), and an async execution mode in a single sentence. 'Recalculate' is a unique operation among the sibling set, clearly separating it from the read-only getters kaiten_get_card_sla_measurements/kaiten_get_space_sla_measurements and from attach/detach operations like kaiten_attach_card_sla.

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 is given about when to invoke recalculation — e.g., after SLA rule changes or when measurements are stale — nor when a read-only sibling like kaiten_get_card_sla_measurements would be the right choice. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or situational context.

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