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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the human key is server-assigned (OPUS-451) and returned in the reply, which stops an agent from trying to specify it. It does not cover permissions or reply shape beyond that.

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?

Two terse sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The auto-assigned key detail is a single clause that earns its place because it prevents a common misuse.

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 exists, and the description only notes that the human key is in the reply without describing the rest of the return payload. For a write tool with seven parameters, this is adequate but leaves return-format details to inference.

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 fully documents all seven parameters, including the retry-safe optional card_id. The description adds nothing about parameters themselves, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Add a card to a column'), which is clearer than a tautology. It distinguishes creation from the update/move/delete siblings by name alone, but does not explicitly contrast them in text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_kanban_column, update_kanban_card, or the bulk workflow. The only implied context is that a card must belong to a column, which the schema already conveys.

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