update-card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' without revealing whether fields are partially updated or fully replaced, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects. This is a significant gap 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation, though it could benefit from more detail. The brevity is a strength, not a flaw.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves out important operational context. It doesn't explain the effect on fields not provided, whether tags are replaced or merged, or what the response looks like. For a tool with four parameters, this is incomplete and could lead to incorrect usage.

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%, with each parameter already having a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema itself adequately explains the parameters.

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 tool updates an existing note, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling update-cloze-card, which is a similar operation on a specialized note type. The name 'update-card' vs description 'note' adds minor ambiguity, but it's still understandable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-cloze-card. There's no mention of what kinds of notes are appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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