update_card

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

The description makes the mutation explicit ('Replace a card') and mentions a dry_run preview, but there are no safety annotations, and it does not warn that replacing a card in a live dashboard may be destructive or irreversible. It also doesn't mention permissions or failure/success side effects beyond returning a backup_id.

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 tight bulleted list, front-loads the main action, and every sentence adds cardinal-dashboard contextual junk; no filler or restatement.

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?

With 6 params, 0 annotated, no annotation guidance, and live dashboard mutation risk, the description doesn't specify edge cases, side effects, concurrency with sibling tools (add_card, remove_card, move_card). Output schema + describes backup_id/dry_run result, which helps. It doesn't define implications on live dashboards, backup/restore behavior, or failure settings.

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 plain-language meaning for all six parameters: url_path, view (target index/path/title), card_index, card (new config dict), section, dry_run. It adds necessary constraints (e.g., card mustodeline requires a string 'type') and explains dry_run behavior beyond the raw schema. But it doesn't give detailed value formats or examples for nested object shapes.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('a card in a dashboard view'), which is clear and mostly distinct from sibling tools like add_card and move_card. It could more strongly differentiate itself from update-style tools, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 lists arguments and explains required fields (e.g., 'card' must include a string 'type'), and clarifies that 'section' is required for sections views. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_card, move_card), nor does it note when not to use it.

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