Update board card

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It states the tool is an update operation (mutation) and provides the card ID format, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether fields are overwritten or merged.

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 with no wasted words. Includes the card ID format hint in parentheses. Every element 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?

Tool is simple (update card fields) and sibling tools provide context. However, no output schema means the return value is undocumented; description does not mention what is returned on success, which is a minor gap 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?

Schema coverage is 50% with descriptions for card_id and workspace. The description adds that title and body are updatable, partly compensating for the missing schema descriptions. However, it does not specify allowed formats or constraints for these fields.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'card', specifies updatable fields 'title and/or body', and includes the card ID format hint '(T-N / #T-N)'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like board_add_card and board_delete_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?

Implied usage context: when needing to modify a card's title or body. No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, which is acceptable given the distinct purpose among siblings, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or when to use other tools.

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