update_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds value by disclosing partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed') and giving concrete constraints for 'state' and 'priority' beyond the schema. It does not mention permissions, error behavior, or null field semantics, but the added details are useful.

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, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide key field constraints. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, the description covers only a subset of the semantics (state and priority). It lacks guidance on how to use other fields, especially null handling, and does not differentiate from related tools like move_card or archive_card. Though an output schema exists, it doesn't compensate for these 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'state' and 'priority' with allowed values, but leaves the other 10 parameters without any additional meaning. The global 'only provided fields are changed' partially clarifies behavior, but the distinction between omitted and null fields remains ambiguous.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing card.' It also notes 'Only provided fields are changed,' which distinguishes it from create, move, or archive operations. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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 implies usage for modifying card attributes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_card or archive_card. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the guidance is only implicit.

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