update_card

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses important side effects: setting list_id moves the card and position reorders it. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as clearing fields with null, permission requirements, or idempotency, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional examples are directly relevant. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core use case and key fields, but does not mention null-clearing semantics or other edge cases. Given the straightforward schema and presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete, though not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for list_id and position (including the 'positive float' constraint), but card_id, name, description, and due are left to their names alone. This partial compensation is useful but not complete.

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 opens with 'Update a card's fields,' clearly identifying the action and resource. The examples about list_id and position distinguish it from siblings like archive_card or create_card, showing it is the general mutation tool for card properties.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—whenever updating card fields, especially moving to another list or reordering. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like archive_card, but the scope is unmistakable from the sibling list.

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