Update card

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context. It usefully scopes the operation to three editable fields, implying a partial update that leaves other card state intact, but it is silent on the key behavioral ambiguity: all three fields default to null, so it is unclear whether passing null leaves a field unchanged or clears it.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second line is a raw REST endpoint URL that mostly duplicates what the tool name and annotations already convey. Half the description is spent on routing detail rather than the information an agent actually needs.

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?

This is a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions anywhere in the definition. The description does not say whether the updated card is returned, how partial-update conflicts are handled, or what permissions are required, leaving substantial gaps for a write operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names the three editable fields (title, description, due date), adding some mapping value, but board_id, stack_id and card_id are never explained as location identifiers, and the null/default semantics of the optional fields — which directly determine correct invocation — are left undefined.

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 and resource — 'Change one card's title, description or due date' — which is clearly distinguishable from nextcloud_delete_card, nextcloud_move_card and nextcloud_get_card. It does not explicitly name any sibling as the alternative path, but the intended operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of nextcloud_move_card (which also modifies a card) or nextcloud_update_task/nextcloud_update_note. No prerequisites, permissions or conflict conditions are stated, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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