update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lacks details on side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description only lists updatable fields without behavioral context.

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 sentences, nothing extraneous. First sentence states the action, second provides common use cases. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 6 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter dependencies (e.g., cancellation_reason required for CANCELLED). It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description adds some value by summarizing parameters as 'status, spending limits, or PIN'. However, 'PIN' is not a parameter in the schema, which is misleading. The description does not fully compensate for missing param details.

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 tool updates card status, spending limits, or PIN, and lists specific use cases like activation, blocking, and reporting lost/stolen. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_card or list_cards.

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 clear use cases (activate, block/unblock, report lost/stolen) and implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though context is clear.

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