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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond restating the operation: it does not explain whether this is a partial or full replacement of the card (critical given destructiveHint=true), what happens to fields omitted from the body, or what authorization is required. For a destructive mutation the behavioral disclosure is thin.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the parameter overview. There is no filler, though the inline param list is terse rather than structured.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the basic call shape. But with 0% schema coverage and a destructive, idempotent mutation on nested content, the absence of partial-vs-full update semantics and field-level meaning leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does name the three params with the program uuid, the card uuid, and the nested body fields (kind, title, body). It omits that kind is an enum restricted to info/rule and gives no maxLength or nullability hints, so it only partially compensates for the empty schema.

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 (Update) and resource (program info card), so an agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not differentiate from closely named siblings such as update_template_info_card or update_program_item, but the resource noun is precise enough to distinguish it from most.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when this differs from add_program_info_card or update_template_info_card. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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