update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update an existing card' without mentioning any side effects, permissions required, or consequences such as whether updates are reversible or affect related entities.

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 sentence, which is concise, but could be slightly expanded to include more context without becoming verbose. Every word earns its place, but the lack of detail reduces its informativeness.

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?

Given the complexity (nested input schema, multiple optional properties, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value, error cases, or the effect of updating various fields. For a tool with many parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.

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 includes full property descriptions, but per the context signal 'Schema description coverage: 0%', the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. With a nested object and multiple optional fields, the description should clarify how parameters interact or typical use cases.

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 action (update) and the resource (card) with specification that it's a saved question in Metabase. It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_card or delete_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_card for new cards, or other update tools). The description implies it is for updating existing cards, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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