kaiten_update_external_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only restates the action. It does not say whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens if card_id or link_id do not match an existing link, or any permissions needed. The name and description both indicate mutation, so there is no contradiction, but no added transparency beyond the tool name.

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 zero wasted words — 'Update' leads immediately and every word earns its place. It is appropriately brief, though so sparse that substantive details (which fields are updatable, which IDs identify the target) are entirely deferred to the schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers only the purpose and nothing else. It omits update semantics (can url and description be changed independently or only together?), routing relative to sibling external-link tools, and any error or return behavior, forcing the agent to infer everything from the parameter schema and tool name.

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 all four parameters (url, card_id, link_id, description) already carry schema-level descriptions, setting the baseline at 3. The tool description adds only the contextual fact that the link lives on a Kaiten card, which lightly ties card_id to the link's owner but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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') plus a specific resource ('external link on a Kaiten card'), making the core action unmistakable. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like kaiten_create_external_link, kaiten_delete_external_link, and kaiten_list_external_links through the verb itself, though it never names them or their scope explicitly.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus creating, deleting, or listing external links. It also omits prerequisites such as obtaining the link_id from kaiten_list_external_links or confirming that card_id identifies the card that owns the link.

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