update_card_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Modifie' implies a destructive/write operation, but the description does not disclose whether the change is reversible, whether the new name fully replaces the old one, any length constraints, or what happens on failure. This is a meaningful 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 compact sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose with zero filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it instantly scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect as a return value, but it does not. It also omits mutation warnings and error behavior. While the parameter set is small and simple, the absence of any behavioral or return-value context leaves the description incomplete for an agent making an actual call.

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. However, the schema descriptions are weak ('Parameter name' is tautological; 'cardId (24 characters)' gives only length). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, merely confirming that 'name' refers to the card's title.

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 'Modifie le nom/titre d'une carte Trello' states a specific verb (modifie) and a precise resource (the name/title of a Trello card). It is unambiguous and implicitly distinct from sibling update_card_description, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 update_card_description, create_trello_card, or other card-modifying siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the card must exist) or exclusions.

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