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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful context (the underlying POST endpoint, where to find the board id), but says nothing about required permissions, side effects on the board/stage, or rate limits beyond what annotations cover.

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 purpose followed by the id-location hint and the endpoint. No filler; every sentence contributes something.

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 4-parameter create tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, id sourcing, and the API path. It lacks any note on permissions or what happens to the created card, but that is a minor gap given the annotations and schema carry the rest.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining where the required board_id comes from (the board's URL in Trengo), which the schema does not say. It does not otherwise describe stage_id or name semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a card ... in a stage of a Trengo board') and gives examples of what a card represents (deal or task). It is clearly distinct from the sibling trengo_update_board_card, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 statement of when to use this versus edit or move a card via trengo_update_board_card, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only guidance is locational ('the board id is in the board's URL'), which helps discovery but is not usage guidance.

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