update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses that comments cannot be modified, but lacks details on atomicity, auth requirements, partial updates, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 9 params, more behavioral context is needed.

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 three sentences: states purpose, lists capabilities, notes limitation. No fluff, front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it's efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With 9 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main actions but omits return value details, validation rules, or error handling. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of updatable fields (title, reassign, note, due date, status) but does not add significant nuance beyond the schema. It serves as a quick overview rather than deep semantic enrichment.

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 (update) and resource (card), lists specific updatable fields (title, assignee, note, due date, status), and explicitly states a limitation (comments cannot be modified). This effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment or archive_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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_card or archive_card. It only lists what can be updated without context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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