trello_update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It simply says 'update' without mentioning potential side effects (e.g., whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared), required permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) with no wasted words, but it lacks structure and omits important details. It could be expanded while remaining concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the impact of partial updates. More context is needed for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 only 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description lists 'nome, descrizione, scadenza, lista', which maps to name, desc, due, and idList, adding minimal context. It does not clarify parameters like closed or dueComplete, nor does it explain the format or behavior beyond the schema.

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 it updates an existing card and lists the main fields (nome, descrizione, scadenza, lista). This is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like trello_move_card or trello_archive_card, which overlap in functionality.

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 (e.g., trello_move_card for moving lists, trello_archive_card for archiving). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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