update_card_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a mutation but does not state whether the update overwrites the entire existing description, whether it is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what the operation returns. The calibration example for update_drive (a mutation with no annotations) received the same score for similar 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?

A single efficient sentence with zero filler. The action verb is front-loaded and the object is precise. There is no waste, and nothing needs to be moved or trimmed.

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 tool this is minimally adequate: it states the action and the schema documents both required parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps — overwrite semantics, success/error behavior, and return value are all undocumented. It is not incomplete enough to be unusable, but it does not fully equip an agent.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter detail. The schema's own descriptions are thin ('Parameter cardId (24 characters)' and 'Parameter description'), but per the rubric, high schema coverage sets the baseline, and the description does not need to compensate. It also does not exceed the schema's contribution.

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 states a specific verb ('Met à jour' / updates) and a precise resource ('la description d'une carte Trello existante' / the description of an existing Trello card). This clearly distinguishes it from the closest sibling, update_card_name, which targets a different field, and from create_trello_card, which creates rather than modifies. The word 'existante' usefully signals that the card must already exist.

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. With over 40 sibling tools including update_card_name, add_card_comment, and set_card_cover, an agent receives no routing hints about which mutation to pick for a given card-editing task. The usage context is only weakly implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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