basecamp_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Update an existing card' and lists fields, but does not explain whether updates are partial or full, how attachments are appended, any permission requirements, side effects like notifications, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb and resource, followed by a compact parenthetical list of fields. No redundant words, and it efficiently conveys the tool's primary purpose and capabilities.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not state required parameters, return value, or any usage context. It merely lists editable fields, leaving the agent to infer how to properly invoke the tool for different scenarios.

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?

Despite low schema coverage (13%), the description maps several parameter names to meaningful terms: 'assignees' for assignee_ids, 'due date' for due_on, 'completion' for completed, and 'attachments' for attachment_sgids. This adds value beyond the raw schema. However, it omits format details (e.g., due_on date format) and doesn't mention required identifiers (project_id, card_id), though those are self-evident.

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: updating an existing card, and enumerates the specific modifiable fields (title, content, assignees, due date, completion). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_card, move_card, or trash_card by explicitly focusing on update operations for cards.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., card must already exist, need project_id), or contrast with basecamp_create_card or basecamp_move_card. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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