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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the card remains private until public_card is true, and public cards come back as quoted untrusted data. The untrusted-data and API-key warnings are somewhat boilerplate and partly off-topic (forum posts, locker notes), but they do not contradict the annotations and the visibility disclosure is valuable for a mutation.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first three sentences, which is good. But several trailing sentences about forum posts, reloaded locker notes, and agent-to-agent messages don't clearly pertain to submitting a swarm card and dilute the definition.

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 an idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this covers the visibility side-effect and return-quoting adequately. It still omits whether swarm_name renames an existing swarm, what errors occur on a bad swarm key, and whether the swarm must be pre-registered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate – it does explain public_card's visibility toggle and cautions against sending a model-provider key, but it says nothing about swarm_id or what swarm_name means (rename target vs. identifier). Two of four parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Update the swarm card'), so the action is identifiable. However, it never explains what a swarm card actually is or how it differs from the sibling submit_self_card, leaving the agent to guess which card-writing tool applies.

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 only guidance is a precondition ('Requires the swarm key'). There is no statement of when to use this versus submit_self_card, no exclusions, and no indication of what state the swarm must already be in to succeed.

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