edit_card

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

The description reveals the mutation and the approval workflow, but with no annotations, it leaves behavioral details implicit: it does not state whether the edit is reversible, whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged, or what the tool does when multiple fields are supplied. Some side effects therefore remain underspecified.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides a meaningful operational instruction. There is minimal waste and the key workflow is stated first.

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 tool's simplicity, its output schema, and the fact that only one parameter is required, the description covers the essential workflow and constraints well. It could be more complete by clarifying the null-field behavior and whether the edit is permanent, but those are relatively minor gaps.

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 schema already documents each parameter concisely and with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'call with new values' and the note that a specific card (#N) is being edited.

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?

Opens with 'Apply one approved edit,' immediately stating the verb, the resource, and that the action is a single mutation on an existing card. This clearly separates it from add_card (create), get_card/search_cards (read), and list_deck_cards (listing).

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 exact invocation context is stated: 'Used during systematic deck review after the user approves a specific card (#N).' It also explicitly warns to revise when new context arrives and never call the tool in parallel with others, giving clear usage boundaries.

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