kaiten_update_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update,' which conveys mutation, but does not reveal whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether permissions are required, what side effects occur, 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and clearly structured, though slightly terse; this is better viewed as a completeness issue rather than a structure problem.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. The detailed schema mitigates the parameter gap, but behavioral context such as update semantics, prerequisites, and expected outcomes is missing.

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 every parameter already has descriptive meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level details, but it does not need to because the schema handles this adequately.

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 verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('a Kaiten project'), and is distinct from siblings like kaiten_create_project, kaiten_get_project, and kaiten_delete_project. It lacks detail on what fields can be changed, but 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus kaiten_create_project, kaiten_get_project, or other update tools. It does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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