kaiten_update_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a Kaiten board' only signals mutation; it does not explain whether the update is partial or full, what side effects occur, whether permissions are required, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with nine parameters, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently states the core purpose, though it could arguably add more context while remaining concise. The structure is clean and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's nine parameters, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain update semantics, required identification of the board, optional-field behavior, or what the response contains. The schema helps, but overall context remains incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, including field names and meaning, so the description need not repeat that information. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the load, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('a Kaiten board'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kaiten_create_board, kaiten_get_board, and kaiten_delete_board. However, it gives no indication of what aspects of the board can be updated, so it stops short of a fully informative definition.

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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the operation without contextual selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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