kaiten_update_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavioral constraint ('author only'), which is valuable for an update operation, but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or what happens when the caller is not the author. This is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.

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 wasted words. It states the action, resource, and key restriction efficiently.

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?

For a simple 4-parameter update operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It includes the essential permission caveat, though it could have briefly noted alternatives or expected behavior when the caller is not the author.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Update'), a clear resource ('a comment on a card'), and adds an important scope restriction ('author only'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as kaiten_create_comment and kaiten_delete_comment, so an agent can tell which action applies.

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?

The phrase 'author only' provides a useful condition for when this tool is applicable, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer create/delete/list comment tools. Usage context is implied by the verb and resource rather than explicitly stated.

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