update_card_external_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It acknowledges mutation via 'update' but does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., link not found), permissions required, idempotency, or response behavior. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the operation and its target. No wasted words; it is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 is simple (4 flat parameters, no output schema, no annotations), so the description need not be extensive. However, it fails to mention that card_id and link_id are required identifiers, nor does it provide any usage caveats like 'only URL or description can be changed, not the link itself'. While the schema covers required fields, the description leaves out operational context that would help an agent call it correctly without opening the schema.

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%, with each parameter having a meaningful description ('New URL', 'New description', etc.). The tool description adds marginal value by explicitly naming which fields can be updated, but this mostly restates the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters well, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Update') and a specific resource ('external link'), and specifies the mutable fields (URL or description). It distinguishes from siblings like add_card_external_link and remove_card_external_link by focusing on modification, so an agent can immediately tell this is the update operation.

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 an existing external link (since it is an 'update' action), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites such as requiring valid card_id and link_id. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided; 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.