update_card

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'update', but does not disclose whether updates are incremental or overwrite, permission requirements, idempotency, or return value behavior (despite output schema existing). Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundancy. Every word serves to convey the core functionality. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how optional parameters interact (e.g., set to null vs omit), what the output contains, or any side effects. The tool is described minimally despite richer context possible.

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 description must compensate. It lists updatable fields (name, desc, due, closed) but does not explain card_id or provide additional semantics beyond the parameter names. No units, formats, or constraints are given.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'card', and lists specific attributes (name, description, due date, closed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_card, archive_card, and 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that archive_card is more specific for archiving, or that setting closed=true might be redundant. Implicit usage is clear but explicit exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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