card_update_nickname

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly discloses SCA polling behavior: default inline polling with wait=30s, fallback to structured pending response, and the use of sca_session_token for retry. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool involving authentication.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential behavioral context. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the critical SCA flow. It does not mention return values, success conditions, or error states, but for a simple update with well-documented parameters, it is mostly complete. An agent can reasonably invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between wait, sca_session_token, and the polling/fallback flow, which is beyond the schema descriptions. However, it does not clarify the meaning of id or nickname beyond what the schema provides.

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 a card's nickname' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like card_update_limits or card_update_restrictions by targeting the nickname field explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus other card update tools or alternatives. The description focuses on SCA behavior but does not explain the context for updating a nickname (e.g., when to use it, prerequisites, or why not use another tool).

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