kaiten_update_planned_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly discloses the mutation ('update') and explains the domain semantics of the gap, including predecessor/successor direction and the Timeline/Gantt context. However, it does not disclose behavior around missing relations, whether updates are idempotent, permission requirements, or what the response contains.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated immediately, and the second sentence defines the key domain term 'gap' in a way that directly supports parameter understanding. Every sentence earns its place.

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 update operation with 100% schema description coverage and no nested objects, the provided description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main missing context is explicit guidance about preconditions and return behavior, but these are minor given the clarity of the operation and parameter definitions.

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 already provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including null-to-clear behavior, valid gap range, and gap_type enum values. The description adds modest context by framing the gap as the time distance between the predecessor's end and the successor's start, but the schema already covers the essential parameter meanings. Baseline 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 specific action ('update'), a specific resource ('planned relation between two cards'), and the exact field being modified ('gap (lag/lead)'). It also explains what a gap is, removing ambiguity. The focus on updating a gap clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools kaiten_add_planned_relation and kaiten_remove_planned_relation.

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 verb 'update' and the concept of an existing planned relation imply this tool is for modifying an already-created relation's gap. However, the description does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool instead of kaiten_add_planned_relation or kaiten_remove_planned_relation, nor does it state preconditions such as 'the relation must already exist'.

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