card_update

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, yet the only trait it discloses is that the card is not moved. It says nothing about partial-update semantics (are unspecified fields preserved?), permission requirements, whether it returns the updated card, or that setting closed=true archives the card.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the usage trigger comes first and the scope constraint follows immediately.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but omits return behavior and permission/authorization context. It is adequate to select the tool but not to predict its effects.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's field enumeration loosely maps to name/desc/due/dueComplete/closed but adds no semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific verb ('changing') and resource ('card metadata') and enumerates the affected fields (title, description, due date, due completion, archive state). It is clear on its own, but it does not acknowledge the overlapping siblings card_archive and card_due_date_set, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

'Use when changing card metadata ... without moving it' gives a clear usage trigger plus an explicit exclusion (no repositioning). What is missing is routing: no mention of card_move, card_archive, or card_due_date_set as the alternatives for those cases.

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