update_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the operation mutates the real board, that it is a partial update, and that archive=true hides rather than deletes the card. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and semantics beyond the bare tool name.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, real board warning, and archive semantics. Every sentence earns its place, with critical behavioral details front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema data.

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 nuanced mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description provides strong context: side effect warning, partial-update behavior, and archive's non-destructive nature. It does not explain due_complete or mention alternative tools for card placement, but output schema covers return values and the core calling contract is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers 4 of 6 parameters (name, description, due, archive) with explicit semantics, especially archive's close-vs-remove meaning. It omits due_complete and doesn't explicitly identify card_id's role, but the partial-update statement generically explains how all parameters behave.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a card's name, description, due date, or archive it.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_card, move_card, and get_card by naming the exact fields it operates on.

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 use for modifying an existing card: 'Only the arguments you pass are changed.' It also marks it as a real write operation ('This writes to the real board'), contrasting it with read-only tools. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or providing when-not-to-use guidance.

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