Create Step

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that new steps are 'created as incomplete by default,' which is not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'Steps help break down work into manageable tasks' is slightly filler, but the rest is efficient and the default-incomplete detail is valuable.

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 simple create operation with three fully documented required parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It could mention what happens on success, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor 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%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions, including examples for content and guidance for card_number and account_slug. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific action ('Create a new to-do step'), identifies the resource ('checklist item on a card'), and differentiates it from sibling tools like fizzy_get_step, fizzy_update_step, and fizzy_delete_step. The scope 'on a card' adds useful precision.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the card must exist), and no exclusions. The use case is only implied by the word 'Create'.

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