kaiten_update_commentUpdates the text of an existing Kaiten comment by card ID and comment ID. Use it to correct or revise comment content while preserving the original comment thread.
Изменяет текст существующего комментария.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Новый текст | |
| card_id | Yes | ID карточки | |
| comment_id | Yes | ID комментария |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the edit replaces the entire comment text or merges with it, whether it requires author or admin permissions, whether edits are reversible, or what happens if comment_id belongs to a different card. For a mutation tool with zero 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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is not bloated, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
This is a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or the shape of the result. Given the complexity of a write operation, it should do considerably more.
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%, with all three parameters documented in Russian ('Новый текст', 'ID карточки', 'ID комментария'). The description only echoes 'text' and adds no constraint or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: it changes the text of an existing comment. 'Existing' and 'text' implicitly separate it from kaiten_create_comment and kaiten_delete_comment, but it never names those siblings explicitly. The purpose is clear and unambiguous, though differentiation relies on the tool name.
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 instead of kaiten_create_comment or kaiten_delete_comment, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.