set_card_due_date

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. It conveys only that the operation sets a deadline; it says nothing about overwriting an existing due date, accepted datetime formats, timezone handling, or side effects such as clearing a 'complete' flag. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb 'Définit' leads and the object is clear. It is efficient and easily parsed, though its terseness edges toward under-specification, which is already penalized in other dimensions.

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 simple two-parameter setter, the description omits the two things an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the dueDate format and overwrite behavior. There is no output schema to clarify the return value, and the description does not connect to the surrounding due-date workflow siblings (remove_card_due_date, mark_due_date_complete, list_cards_by_due_date).

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?

Although schema coverage is nominally 100%, both parameter descriptions are vacuous restatements ('Parameter cardId', 'Parameter dueDate'), so the schema does no real work. The description links cardId to the target card and dueDate to a deadline, but it fails to specify the dueDate format (ISO 8601, timestamp, date-only vs datetime), which is essential for a correct invocation.

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 French description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'sets a deadline on a Trello card.' It is not a tautology of the tool name — it adds the Trello card context and glosses 'due date' as 'deadline.' The action is distinguishable from siblings like remove_card_due_date and mark_due_date_complete by its explicit 'sets' semantics.

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 remove_card_due_date, mark_due_date_complete, or list_cards_by_due_date. It also does not clarify behavior when a due date already exists on the card, leaving the agent to guess whether the call overwrites, errors, or requires removal first.

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