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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the key destructive behavior: 'user_ids / contact_ids replace the current sets', which tells the agent existing owners/leads will be overwritten. It also names the underlying endpoint. It does not cover auth requirements or what happens to omitted fields beyond the 'partially' cue.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the operation and its field breakdown are front-loaded, followed by the replace semantics and endpoint. No filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description gives enough to invoke correctly on a 6-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented. It omits only minor detail such as permission requirements and the exact response shape.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the replace-the-set semantics. The description restates the field groups and the replace behavior but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource ('Partially update a board card') and enumerates the exact mutations supported: rename, move stage, set users/contacts. An agent can distinguish this from trengo_create_board_card purely from the description.

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 word 'Partially' implies this is for incremental changes to an existing card, and the field list gives context for common operations. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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