fizzy_update_card

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states 'Update an existing card' without mentioning whether it performs a partial or full update, whether it requires special permissions, what it returns, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an update operation.

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 one concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified, lacking the detail needed for a mutation tool. It is concise but not richly informative; still, it earns a decent score for avoiding fluff.

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, output schema, and the mutation nature of the tool, the description is too sparse. It does not explain update semantics, error conditions, or return values, and does not help the agent understand behavior beyond the schema. The description is incomplete for reliable use.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('New title for the card', 'The ID of the card', 'New description for the card'), so the schema already provides needed semantics. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('an existing card'), which clearly distinguishes it from creation tools like 'fizzy_create_card'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools like 'fizzy_move_card' or 'fizzy_add_comment', so the scope is slightly underspecified.

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for editing card fields like title or description, nor does it exclude operations like moving or commenting. There is no explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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