framedeck-mcp

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

The word 'existing' correctly implies the card must already be present (consistent with annotations) and suggests this is not a create operation. However, it does not disclose what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full replacement), nor explain the partial matching behavior hinted at in the schema's 'id' parameter.

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 description is extremely brief at only four words with no filler. While not wasting words, it is arguably too minimal—missing the opportunity to add value that structured fields cannot provide (like sibling differentiation).

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?

Given the well-documented schema (6 params, 100% coverage) and presence of safety annotations, the description meets minimum viability. However, it omits explanation of domain terminology ('frame') and doesn't address the tool's relationship to the 30+ sibling operations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., it doesn't clarify that 'column' accepts stage names or that priority accepts empty strings to clear values), but it also doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 the specific action ('Update') and resource ('card'), confirming this is a mutation operation. However, the '/frame' terminology is unexplained jargon that adds confusion, and it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'move_card' (which also changes column) or 'set_card_color'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_card' (which overlaps on the column/stage parameter) or 'archive_card'. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned despite having many sibling tools with overlapping functionality.

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