update_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious side effect: editing an archived card returns it to the board. That is valuable. However, it omits permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved (only implied by the note param), error behavior, and how the 'done'/updated refresh interacts with the update.

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 well front-loaded. The second sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity ('Leaving done, or any edit that refreshes updated'), making a real behavioral rule hard to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by disclosing the unarchive side effect, but it lacks usage boundaries against move_card/add_card and leaves the phantom 'done' reference unexplained. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates three of the five fields but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail, and it mentions a 'done' concept absent from the schema, which adds confusion rather than meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update card') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, column, memoryRef), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_desk_summary. It does not differentiate itself from move_card or rename_column, which also manipulate columns, so the boundary is blurred.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, despite siblings move_card and add_card covering adjacent operations. The phrase about 'leaving done' hints at a condition but is not explained, and it references a 'done' field that does not exist in the input schema, leaving the agent to guess.

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