update_card_title

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update (e.g., success response, error conditions, or side effects). Given the complexity of modifying data and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('card_id' and 'title') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format constraints, validation rules, or examples). 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('title of a card/issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_card_description' by specifying the title field, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other card operations like 'move_card' or 'view_card' beyond the title focus.

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 valid card_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from other card-update operations like 'update_card_description' or 'move_card' beyond the obvious title focus.

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