zuuna_update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that only sent fields change, which is a partial-update behavior, but it does not disclose what happens on success (return value, confirmation), error conditions (card not found, invalid key), or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place, and it avoids 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return behavior or success/failure semantics. It doesn't clarify what the tool returns (if anything) or what happens if the card doesn't exist. The description is too sparse to be fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters (card, title, priority, description) including the enum and null behavior. The description adds minimal new meaning, essentially restating what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 tool's function: 'Edit a card: title, description and/or priority'. It names the specific resource (card) and the fields it can modify, distinguishing it from siblings like zuuna_create_card and zuuna_move_card. The verb 'Edit' is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: editing existing cards, with the note 'Only the fields you send change' indicating partial updates. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the sibling names make the distinction obvious. It lacks explicit exclusions but is still reasonably clear.

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