kaiten_update_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key limitation (the on_workflow exclusion), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not disclose update semantics such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged (patch vs replace), permission requirements, or failure behavior — all relevant for a mutation tool.

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, zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the exception with alternative is stated immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 has 8 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description plus schema cover how to invoke it, and the cross-reference to create_automation compensates for undocumented nested structures. Still, partial-update semantics and return behavior are left unstated, which is a notable gap for an update operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by cross-referencing kaiten_create_automation for supported action/trigger/condition types, which matters because the schema defines several nested objects only as plain objects ('{type, data}') with no enumerated options.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Update an automation in a Kaiten space') and immediately distinguishes scope by naming what it cannot do ('Cannot update automations of type on_workflow'), which separates it from sibling tools like kaiten_create_automation, kaiten_get_automation, kaiten_delete_automation, and kaiten_update_workflow.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('Cannot update automations of type on_workflow') and names the alternative ('use Workflow API instead'), which maps to the sibling kaiten_update_workflow. An agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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