Update Card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that properties are updated. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, what the return value is, whether authentication is required, or the side effects of setting due to null or toggling dueComplete. Like the bare update_drive calibration, this is a significant transparency gap 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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded and it is easy to scan. It earns its place but borders on under-specification given the absence of annotations, which prevents a 5.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with moderate complexity, the fully documented schema covers the invocation details and the description covers the core operation, making this minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return-value behavior and partial-update semantics, which an agent needs to correctly handle the response and side effects.

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 six parameters (cardId, name, desc, due, pos, dueComplete) already carry meaningful descriptions such as Due date (ISO 8601) or null to remove and New name for the card. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the generic word properties, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (Update) and resource (existing Trello card), clearly framing the operation as in-place property modification. This separates it from siblings with different verbs like create_card, archive_card, and delete_card. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from move_card, which also mutates a card property (pos), and it leaves which properties are covered to inference.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_card (position changes), update_board (board-level updates), or archive_card/unarchive_card (state changes). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit conditions for selection, leaving the agent to 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.