Update Card Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly implies a mutation of an existing card, but does not disclose permissions, partial-update semantics, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though for an 11-parameter mutation tool the second sentence mostly duplicates schema detail.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits permissions, update semantics, partial field behavior, and return information for a complex mutation tool.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented. The description only restates the cardId/cardNumber identification choice, adding little beyond what the schema already says.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing card's details.' That distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_card, but it does not differentiate from other card-mutating siblings such as move_card, archive_card, or update_card_custom_field.

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 only states that the card can be named by ID or board number. It provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as update_card_custom_field or move_card.

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