kaiten_update_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action 'update'. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or consequences of updating a column. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency 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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is too sparse to be considered well-structured; it omits valuable details that could fit in a few more words. It is not verbose, but it under-specifies, so it earns a middle score.

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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success, any constraints on fields, or behavioral expectations. An agent needs more context to call this tool correctly, especially regarding which optional fields are mutually exclusive or dependent.

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 covers 100% of parameters, each with a description, so the schema already explains what each field means. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond the verb 'update'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but also doesn't need to.

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 'Update a column on a Kaiten board' clearly states the verb (update), resource (column), and domain (Kaiten board). It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated tools, but it does not differentiate from sibling column tools like kaiten_update_subcolumn or kaiten_update_board. Still, the core purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kaiten_create_column, kaiten_delete_column, or kaiten_update_subcolumn. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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