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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the safety profile is partly covered, and the description adds the underlying REST call (POST /boards/{boardId}/cards) for API-level transparency. However, it says nothing about permissions required, side effects, whether the card triggers notifications, or rate limits, which would be valuable 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The trailing endpoint reference is slightly redundant for an agent that already has the tool interface, but it earns its place as API context.

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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations covering returns, the description should indicate what comes back (e.g., the new card or its id) and whether required fields like stage must pre-exist. It covers the resource and ID location but leaves those gaps for an agent to discover.

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 description still earns above it by explaining that board_id lives in the board's URL, which the schema's bare 'The board id.' does not convey. It adds no clarifying semantics for stage_id, name, or description beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a card... in a stage of a Trengo board') and clarifies with an example that a card can be a deal or task. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like trengo_create_ticket or trengo_create_contact, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 alternatives such as trengo_create_ticket, nor any prerequisites stated. The only actionable hint is where to find the board id ('in the board's URL'), which is a locator tip rather than usage guidance.

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