update_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. The description is too brief—'Update a card's properties'—and does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, what happens if required fields are missing, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions add detail but are not summarized in the tool description.

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 of four words, which is highly concise. Every word contributes to the core meaning. There is no wasted text.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, many optional), the description is too minimal. It does not summarize the overall functionality, such as that it can update name, description, archive status, custom fields, tasks, and create tasklists. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks contextual completeness for an agent to understand the tool's full scope.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates 'properties.' The parameter descriptions themselves are rich (e.g., Markdown limitations for 'description', format for 'custom_fields'), but the top-level description does not contribute extra value.

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 states 'Update a card's properties,' which clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (card). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_card or delete_card. However, it does not specify the range of properties that can be updated, missing an opportunity to be more precise.

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 versus alternatives like assign_card, tag_card, or move_card. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where another tool would be preferred. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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