wb_cards_create

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden itself. It usefully reveals that the operation is asynchronous and may take up to 30 minutes to sync, which is non-obvious and important. However, it does not disclose response behavior, failure modes, idempotency, or validation constraints, leaving notable gaps.

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. The core purpose and async behavior are front-loaded, the prerequisite is attached in a natural place, and the Russian parenthetical is a minimal translation aid rather than noise.

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 one-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what it creates, that it is async, the sync delay, and the required upstream call. It stops short of explaining what the API returns or how to interpret success/failure, but the operation is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantic value by telling the agent to fetch subject characteristics via wb_subject_charcs first, which directly informs the 'characteristics' field inside the cards payload. It also gives a compact realistic shape of the cards array structure, reinforcing 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 clearly states the action ('Create new cards') and the resource (cards), immediately distinguishing it from card-management siblings like wb_cards_update, wb_cards_list, and wb_cards_move_to_trash. Mentioning the prerequisite wb_subject_charcs further clarifies what kind of cards this tool creates.

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 tells the agent to retrieve subject characteristics via wb_subject_charcs first, which is a clear and explicit prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for creating vs updating cards, but the creation context plus prerequisite is strong enough guidance.

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