kaiten_update_lane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update.' It does not explain whether updates are partial or full, what side effects occur, how condition=2 archives a lane, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 clear sentence with no filler and front-loads the core operation. It is concise, though it is so abbreviated that it contributes little beyond the tool name.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks update semantics, return behavior, and context around options like wip_limit, condition, and default_card_type_id, leaving important operational gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with every parameter named and documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a lane on a Kaiten board.' It is distinct from siblings like kaiten_create_lane, kaiten_delete_lane, and kaiten_list_lanes by its verb and target resource. However, it does not mention what lane attributes can be updated or name any sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 alternatives, and it does not state prerequisites such as an existing lane_id or when not to use it. It leaves the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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