Create Card

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already establish that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation, and the description adds the triage-default placement behavior and HTML support for descriptions. However, most behavioral detail — draft/published visibilty, assignment notifications, and the 'assignment_warnings' fallback — lives in the schema rather than the description. No contradiction with annotations; modest added context.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and field list; the second conveys the key default behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it creates, what fields are optional, the triage default) while the 100%-coverage schema supplies all parameter semantics. The only gap is that nothing states what the successful response contains, but for a create tool with no output schema this is a minor omission.

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 structured data fully documents all 9 parameters. The description merely lists field names ('status (draft/published), column placement, assignees, tags, and due date') without adding syntax, formats, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource construction — 'Create a new card on a board' — and enumerates the optional fields (title, description, status, column placement, assignees, tags, due date). This is unmistakably distinct from sibling card tools like update_card, close_card, or move_card_to_column.

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 implies the usage scenario (creating new cards) and adds one useful behavioral default: 'Cards start in triage by default unless a column is specified.' However, it never explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool or names alternatives such as fizzy_update_card for modifying existing cards. The schema compensates somewhat by pointing to fizzy_get_boards and fizzy_get_identity/fizzy_get_accounts for prerequisites, but the description itself gives only implied guidance.

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