kaiten_update_subcolumn

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but does not describe side effects, permissions required, reversibility, partial-update semantics, or return values. For a write operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that states the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, but it is so terse that it lacks useful structure or elaboration that could aid an agent.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain whether fields can be partially updated, what the effect of col_count is, whether wip_limit and sort_order are mutually exclusive, or what the response will look like. An agent would likely need to guess at expected behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are at least named. However, the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'New title', 'Number of sub-columns to split into') and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. The description itself does not explain how parameters relate or what constraints apply, but the schema already provides basic semantics, so the 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 verb ('update') and a specific resource ('subcolumn of a Kaiten column'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like kaiten_update_column and kaiten_delete_subcolumn. The purpose is immediately 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description is a single declarative sentence that gives no indication of when updating a subcolumn is appropriate or how it contrasts with updating a column or deleting a subcolumn.

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