kaiten_create_card

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the description doesn't need to restate it. It adds genuinely useful context: description bodies are Markdown, and custom properties are keyed as id_<propertyId>. It does not say what happens on duplicate titles or whether properties are validated against the board's schema.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the two parameter hints follow. Nothing is padded, though the hints are terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 12-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves most of what an agent needs (which IDs to supply, how properties map to custom fields) unstated.

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 0% and there are 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only the 'description' (Markdown) and 'properties' (id_<propertyId> key format) parameters, leaving asap, lane_id, type_id, column_id, owner_id, size_text, due_date, and due_date_time_present completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a card on a board'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutations like update_card, move_card, and archive_card. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent against those siblings.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus update_card or move_card, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a board_id and lane_id from kaiten_list_boards/list_lanes). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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