apply_update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a mutation tool ('Execute card update'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The phrase 'after user confirms' hints at a workflow step, but doesn't clarify if this is destructive, irreversible, or has rate limits, making behavioral traits insufficiently disclosed.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Execute card update after user confirms'. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a key constraint, making it appropriately sized and easy 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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'card update' involves, the outcome, error conditions, or how it fits with siblings like 'update_card_preview'. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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%, with parameters 'token' and 'confirmation' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a sequence ('after user confirms'), but doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Execute card update after user confirms' states the action (execute) and resource (card update), but is vague about what 'card update' entails compared to siblings like 'apply_update_cards_batch' or 'update_card_fields_preview'. It doesn't specify if this applies to a single card or batch, or what aspects of a card are updated, leaving ambiguity.

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?

The description mentions 'after user confirms', implying a prerequisite (user confirmation), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_update_cards_batch' or 'update_card_preview'. There's no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.

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