kaiten_update_sd_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the non-obvious behavior that the endpoint may return 405 and that update functionality may be limited to the portal. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, partial-update semantics, or what a successful response looks like.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical 405/portal caveat is placed immediately after without repeating schema details.

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 four-parameter update with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate and the 405 caveat adds real value. Still, it does not specify under what conditions the 405 occurs, does not describe the success response, and does not mention authentication or authorization needs.

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 schema already documents title, priority, request_id, and description. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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') and a specific resource ('Service Desk request'), so the action is unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling update tools like kaiten_update_sd_user or kaiten_update_sd_service, and from the get/create/delete SD request tools.

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 warns that updates may return 405 and may only be available via the Service Desk portal, which provides an important constraint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or state clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions; the portal hint is implied rather than directive.

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