nexus_update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid cardId), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a card's...') and specifies key updatable fields. There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without 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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage guidelines, and output information. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the missing context needed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions and enums for status and priority. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing 'status, assignee, or other fields' but doesn't provide additional context like field dependencies or update constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a card'), and specifies the types of fields that can be updated ('status, assignee, or other fields'). It distinguishes from creation tools (e.g., nexus_create_bug) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like nexus_update_concept or nexus_update_project, which target different resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing card), exclusions (e.g., what fields cannot be updated), or comparisons to sibling update tools (e.g., nexus_update_concept for concepts instead of cards). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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