update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add the key behavioral trait that 'Only provided fields are changed', which clarifies partial update semantics. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, return value, or error behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. It conveys the core action and a key semantic without any wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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?

Although the schema is rich for the patch object, the description omits crucial operational details such as what the tool returns, error conditions, and prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response, but it does not. The complex dataset_query structure would also benefit from additional usage context, making the tool under-specified overall.

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 descriptions cover both parameters ('Card ID' and 'Fields to update'), meeting the high coverage baseline. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by stating that only provided fields are changed, which enriches understanding of the 'patch' parameter.

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 'Update an existing card (saved question)' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies partial update behavior. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_card, create_card, copy_card, and move_card.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_card for creation, get_card for retrieval, copy_card for duplication). The usage is implied from the verb 'update' but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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