update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without revealing whether updates are partial or full replacements, how missing fields are handled, whether moving lists has side effects, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool with 20 parameters, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes useful examples without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's high complexity (20 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description provides only a generic overview. It does not convey the breadth of updatable attributes (cover, labels, members, custom fields, etc.) or clarify overlap with dedicated sibling tools. The rich schema compensates somewhat, but the narrative is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.

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 all 20 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond broad categories like 'modify card details' and 'move to a different list.' Baseline 3 applies because 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates an existing card with new properties, identifies the resource (card), and gives examples of use (modify details, move list, change attributes). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like move_card_to_list or archive_card, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers clear context on when to use the tool ('Use this tool to modify card details, move it to a different list, or change other attributes'). It does not state exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently directive for a general-purpose update tool.

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