Replace a card body

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description and schema clarify this is an overwriting operation ('The complete new Markdown body. This overwrites'). The schema's expectedRevision parameter explains the concurrency behavior ('The write is refused if it no longer matches, so a concurrent edit is reported rather than overwritten'), which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations about the destructive/overwrite semantics and lock/version checking.

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 two tight sentences: one states the primary action and mechanism, the second gives the sibling alternative. Zero wasted words, and the overwrite warning is delivered in the schema. Perfect front-loading of the core purpose.

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?

The tool is a mutation with a concurrency-control mechanism, and the schema + annotations cover the essential context well. The description explains the protocol lock/revision behavior and names the append alternative. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't needed. Slight gap: no mention of what happens if the id doesn't exist, but the revision check covers the main failure mode.

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 all three parameters (id, body, expectedRevision) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value ('This overwrites, so read the card first' clarifies body semantics beyond a plain field label). Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation fully.

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 states a clear verb+resource+action: 'Replace the Markdown body of a card' with a specific mechanism ('under the protocol's lock and revision check'). It distinguishes from sibling project_card_patch (partial vs full replace) and explicitly points to project_card_note as the append alternative. This clearly differentiates from siblings.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool for appending ('Use project_card_note to append instead') and the schema hints to read the card first ('read the card first unless you intend to discard what is there'). The expectedRevision parameter semantics also tell the agent when to use it and what happens on mismatch, giving clear when-to-use and excluded-behavior guidance.

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