aqb_update_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, and it omits almost all of it: it does not say whether the update replaces or rotates the existing card, whether it is on-chain/asynchronous, what gas or signing requirements apply, or whether it is reversible. For a state-mutating account operation, that is a major 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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance: it is under-specified rather than efficient, and the jargon makes the one sentence harder to parse than its length suggests.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a nested object parameter that is entirely undocumented mean the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer. A caller could not confidently construct the 'card' payload or predict the effect of the call from this description alone.

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 0% across three parameters, including a nested, untyped 'card' object and an enum ('ecdsa'/'pq'). The description only loosely gestures at 'card' and 'account' and says nothing about what fields 'card' must contain or when to choose each scheme 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 has a verb ('Publish') and a resource ('agent card hash from a PQSmartAccount'), so the general intent comes through. But it is jargon-dense ('agent card hash', 'PQSmartAccount') and never explains what an agent card is or how this relates to any sibling tool, so it only partially distinguishes itself.

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 never says when to use this tool versus the many siblings (aqb_register, aqb_is_agent, etc.), nor does it state prerequisites, such as whether the caller must already be registered or have a funded account. The only implied guidance is 'when you have a new card hash'.

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