update_card_fields_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'preview' operation, implying it's non-destructive and read-only, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles partial field updates, or what the preview output looks like. For a tool with mutation-like parameters (question, answer, tags) but preview behavior, more context on safety and output format is needed.

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 concise and front-loaded with essential information in just two sentences. The first sentence covers the core purpose and parameters, while the second adds important behavioral context ('Reconstructs full markdown'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (previewing changes to multiple fields), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It clarifies the preview nature and specific fields, but doesn't explain the preview output format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable invocation.

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?

The description lists the specific fields (Question, Answer, Tags) that can be previewed, which adds meaning beyond the input schema's parameter names. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., 'cardId' as 'Card ID to update'). The description doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Preview changes to specific fields (Question, Answer, Tags). Reconstructs full markdown.' It specifies the verb ('Preview changes'), resource ('specific fields'), and scope ('Reconstructs full markdown'), making it clear this is a preview operation rather than an actual update. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'update_card_preview' or 'update_cards_batch_preview', which appear to serve similar preview functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a cardId), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'update_card_preview' or 'apply_update_card'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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