planka_update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation (update) but doesn't state whether it's destructive, if it requires specific permissions, or if it partially updates only provided fields. The description adds a hint of safety by implying it's a targeted update, but there's no explicit disclosure of side effects.

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 that front-loads the primary purpose and lists the key fields. It's efficient and easy to parse, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, a simple schema, and no output schema, which reduces complexity. The description covers the core action and fields but doesn't explain partial update behavior or return values, which could be useful. Given the simplicity, the description is mostly complete but could be slightly richer with usage context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description re-lists some fields (name, description, due date) but doesn't add new meaning like behavior when parameters are omitted or how null values clear fields. The schema's descriptions already cover these semantics, so the description adds minimal value beyond the baseline.

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 a card's properties and lists specific fields (name, description, due date, completion status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_card or move_card. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the resource and action, though it doesn't name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 this tool is for modifying existing cards, which is clear from the context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like planka_create_card or planka_move_card, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., card must exist). This is adequate but not explicit.

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