card_builder_create_card

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the config format (DocumentData v3) and the recommended workflow, but does not disclose side effects, immediate persistence, authorization needs, or error handling. The output schema partially compensates for return value details.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it could add a bit more context about other parameters without becoming verbose. Currently, every sentence is necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested config), the description adequately covers the critical 'config' parameter and the workflow, but fails to mention the required 'name' parameter or optional parameters. The output schema helps with return values, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It only explains the 'config' parameter (full block tree), leaving 'name', 'description', 'tags', 'categories', and 'author' unexplained. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 'Create a new Card Builder card', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'card_builder_update_card' by focusing on creation, and even refers to related tools for building and validating config, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use 'build_from_recipe' to construct the config, validate with 'validate_config' before saving, and refer to 'recipe_guide' for details. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and what preparatory steps to take.

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