edit_post_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the edit operation and rerender behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the edit overwrites existing content, if it is reversible, or any error conditions like out-of-range cardIndex. The mention of rerender adds value but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every clause provides useful 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?

The description is adequate for a simple edit but lacks a mention of the return value, error handling, or the fact that 'number' is also updatable. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more comprehensive, though it covers the main edit workflow.

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 clarification for cardIndex ('1-based') and rerender ('regenerate the visual asset'), which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits the 'number' parameter even though it is editable, so it does not fully clarify all parameters.

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 ('Edit'), the resource ('a single carousel card on a post'), and the indexing convention ('1-based index'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_post_cards or generate_post_carousel, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for updating a single card and mentions the rerender option, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like set_post_cards or bulk editing tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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