wb_cards_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool modifies cards, but does not state whether fields are overwritten or merged, whether card identifiers are required, any permission or validation concerns, or what the mutation produces in response.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy; the key verb and resource appear immediately and the optional Russian parenthetical adds minimal weight. Every part 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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter whose schema description is tautological. The description gives a high-level field list but misses critical information for calling it correctly, such as how cards are identified, whether this is a bulk update, and what response is returned.

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 schema-only description is vague ('updated cards'), so the tool description adds real value by listing the actual updatable attributes (description, SEO, characteristics). However, it still omits the structural requirement for card identifiers or array element shape, preventing a 5.

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 states a clear verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('cards'), and enumerates the exact update targets: description, SEO, and characteristics. This distinguishes it from sibling card tools like create, list, detail, and trash operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_cards_create or wb_card_detail. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be selected or what prerequisites exist, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.

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