Update Card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the important partial-update behavior ('Only specified fields are updated'), which adds value beyond the tool name. However, it omits other behavioral context such as idempotency, permission requirements, handling of nulls or defaults, and effects on card state, so the transparency is only partial.

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?

At two short sentences, the description is maximally concise and front-loads the action ('Update') and resource ('a card's fields'). The second sentence adds a meaningful constraint without redundancy, making the structure efficient and easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. The required id, field semantics, null/default behavior, and response details are all absent; an output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the missing parameter meanings. 'Only specified fields are updated' is the sole piece of non-obvious context.

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 0%, but the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention id, name, dueDate, isClosed, position, or description, nor explain how empty strings, nulls, or position values behave. The phrase 'specified fields' only gestures at optionality rather than explaining any actual parameter.

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 the specific verb 'update' with the resource 'a card's fields,' clearly distinguishing it from create_card, delete_card, get_card, move_card, and duplicate_card among the siblings. The second sentence, 'Only specified fields are updated,' adds an important partial-update nuance that further clarifies the tool's exact purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_card, duplicate_card, assign_parent_card, or attach_file_to_card. The phrase 'update a card's fields' implies a generic update use case, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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