update_card

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It hints at partial updates by using 'New title' and 'New description', but does not explicitly state whether omitted fields are preserved or any other side effects. It omits information about permissions, return values, or error conditions.

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, with a single opening sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every line earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan for the agent.

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 simple update tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it leaves ambiguous the update semantics (partial vs full replacement) and does not mention any prerequisites, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has no per-property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by providing an Args block that explains each parameter's meaning and optionality. This adds real value beyond the raw schema types and enums.

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 identifies the tool as 'Update an existing card in BusinessMap', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'existing', which differentiates it from create_card.

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 implies usage for modifying existing cards but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_card. It does not state any exclusions or prerequisites, relying on the reader to infer the appropriate context.

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