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

Annotations already signal non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds a behavioral trait beyond annotations: the card lands in Backlog when no column is specified. It also clarifies the operation requires an existing board. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Add a card') and immediately provides the key default behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a 7-parameter create tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description gives the essential purpose and default column behavior. However, it omits details about return values, error conditions, password handling, or permissions. It is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 86%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings well. The description's only parameter-related detail is the Backlog default, which is also in the schema description for the 'column' parameter. Thus the description adds little beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' and names the resource 'card', plus the board/column context. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_card, delete_card, move_card, and create_board by indicating creation of a card within a board/column. The default column behavior is an additional scoping detail.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when adding/creating a new card. The note about landing in Backlog when no column is given provides useful context for optional usage. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the creation context is unambiguous.

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