update_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that omitted fields are untouched and that the full updated card object is returned, and it specifies that passing an empty string for due_date clears it. However, it lacks details on side effects, error states, or required permissions.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief opening sentence followed by a clear, bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no verbose or redundant content.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, states the return value, and provides usage hints. It could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or authentication requirements, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters), so the description fully compensates. The Args section explains each parameter's purpose, examples (e.g., card_ref: 'ON-914'), format (due_date: YYYY-MM-DD), and references to helper functions (list_iterations, list_members). The extra_fields parameter's merge behavior is explicitly described, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Update one or more fields on an existing card,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_card, archive_card, and move_card. The additional note about omitted fields being untouched further clarifies the tool's behavior.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (updating card fields) and includes hints like using list_iterations() and list_members() to find IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like assign_card or move_card, which have overlapping functionality.

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