update_metabase_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. The 'Returns' section describes output but doesn't cover error conditions or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but is overly verbose due to listing all 16 parameters with brief descriptions. While this provides necessary information given the poor schema coverage, it makes the description lengthy. The core purpose statement is front-loaded, but the parameter list dominates the content.

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 (16 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters extensively but lacks behavioral context about permissions, partial updates, and error handling. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on inputs, but more behavioral guidance is needed for a mutation tool.

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?

The description provides a comprehensive parameter list with brief explanations for all 16 parameters, adding significant value beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. While the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'New name of the card'), they at least clarify what each parameter represents, which is essential given the schema's lack of descriptions. The required card_id is appropriately highlighted.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing card in Metabase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_metabase_collection or update_metabase_dashboard, which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing card_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from create_metabase_card or other sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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