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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that one or more fields can be changed ('und/oder' = and/or) and lists allowed color values, but does not mention partial update behavior, permissions, return value, or error conditions. It adds some context beyond schema but lacks depth.

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 concise two sentences. It front-loads the action and fields, then adds the color enumeration. No unnecessary words or redundant details; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It covers the core purpose but lacks guidance on when to use it, preconditions, return behavior, or error handling. The description is too minimal for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 17% (only due_date has a description), so the description must compensate. It enumerates the updatable fields (title, notes, done, due_date, color) and repeats color enum values, but does not provide additional format or type details beyond what the schema already gives. The field names are self-explanatory, so the added value is modest.

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 clearly states that the tool changes specific card fields (title, note, done status, due date, color) with the verb 'Aendert' (changes) and resource 'Karte' (card). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools (update_board, update_entry) and other card operations (add_card, move_card).

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 implies usage by listing the fields that can be updated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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