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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update card fields' without describing side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error handling, or whether omitted fields are left unchanged. This is a mutation tool, so the lack of behavioral context beyond the verb is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and fields. There is no unnecessary jargon or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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?

Despite having only 7 parameters with a required card_id, the description omits crucial context: it doesn't state that only provided fields are updated (partial update), what happens if the card doesn't exist, or whether size_text and owner_id are optional. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify update behavior but remains too vague for an agent to call it safely without additional assumptions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description's list of fields adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't clarify partial update semantics or how fields interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 card fields and lists the modifiable attributes (title, description, owner, due date, ASAP flag, size). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from create_card and delete_card, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_board. However, the resource is obvious from the name and description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like partial updates, when to use create_card instead, or any exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for updating card fields, but there's no explicit context or comparison with sibling tools.

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