set_card_values

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It warns that writing raw card properties can corrupt scheduling, which is a key risk. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or behavior on invalid input.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the 'Advanced' qualifier and delivers essential information without extraneous text.

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 three parameters and no annotations, the description warns of risks and explains the parallel array structure, but it lacks detail on which fields can be set, expected values, or the return value (though output schema exists). It is minimally adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the parallel keys/values relationship, which adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not describe the card_id parameter or constraints on keys/values.

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 (set), the resource (low-level fields of one card), and the mechanism (parallel keys/values lists). The word 'Advanced' and the warning help distinguish it from simpler tools.

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 includes a warning about misuse corrupting scheduling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide specific preconditions or exclusions.

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