trello_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a card' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether changes are reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There is no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 (a mutation operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects like error conditions, return values, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 5 parameters (card_id, name, desc, idList, pos) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a card' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'trello_update_card'. While it indicates the verb 'update' and resource 'card', it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'trello_update_board' or 'trello_update_list' beyond the resource name.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a card ID), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or comparisons to related tools like 'trello_create_card' for initial creation or 'trello_get_card' for retrieval before updating.

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