update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update properties' without mentioning that changes are mutations, potential side effects like archiving (closed: true), reversibility, permission requirements, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a tool that can alter multiple card fields.

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 only two sentences, with the action verb front-loaded. However, the second sentence 'Use this to change card details...' is largely redundant with the first, and the vague 'or status' adds ambiguity. It is efficient but not flawless.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only hints at a few fields (name, description, due date, status). It does not cover the full range of capabilities like moving (idList), archiving (closed), due completion, or position. Nor does it describe return values or side effects. The description under-represents the tool's complexity.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions examples like 'name, description, due date' which map to parameters, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. The vague 'status' does not clearly correspond to any specific parameter, so no extra value is provided.

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 purpose: 'Update properties of an existing Trello card' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_card and get_card. However, the mention of changing 'status' is ambiguous (could refer to closed, dueComplete, or list position) and overlaps with move_card, so it is not perfectly clear.

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 phrase 'Use this to change card details' provides clear context that this tool is for modifying existing cards. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, particularly move_card, even though update_card can move cards via the idList parameter. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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