kaiten_update_sd_sla

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 the policy is updated; it does not explain whether updates are partial or full, what side effects deactivating a policy has, whether should_delete_sla_from_cards permanently removes SLA data, what permissions are required, or what the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a purpose statement, though it is terse and does not carry much operational detail.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain when to use it, what happens during deactivation, how notification_settings behaves, or what result the caller should expect, leaving an agent without enough context to reason about the update's full effects.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema already documents each parameter, including the role of should_delete_sla_from_cards, though the nested notification_settings object is not expanded in either the schema or the description.

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') and a clear resource ('a Service Desk SLA policy'), making the tool's basic purpose obvious. It is distinguishable from siblings like create/delete/get SD SLA and update_sla_rule by naming the exact resource, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 alternatives such as kaiten_update_sla_rule, kaiten_update_sd_service, or kaiten_create_sd_sla. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided; the only hint is the verb 'update' in the name and description.

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