Create Card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies mutation, but nothing else is disclosed: no default position behavior when pos is omitted, no mention of the response (the created card object), and no note about reversibility or prerequisites. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with zero filler. The verb and destination are front-loaded, and 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the operational context, but it only names the action. Missing: what the call returns (the created card with its new ID), how to discover the required idList, and default behavior when optional fields like pos or due are omitted. A 7-parameter tool with no safety net needs more than one clause.

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. The phrase 'on a Trello list' adds a mild contextual anchor aligning with the idList property, but the description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('create'), resource ('card'), and destination ('on a Trello list'), which matches the required idList parameter. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not actively differentiate itself from siblings like create_checklist or update_card — that differentiation is carried by the tool name rather than the description.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its 78 siblings, and no prerequisites are stated — an agent must infer that a valid list ID needs to be obtained first (e.g., via get_board_lists) before calling. The only usage signal is the verb 'create,' leaving the when-and-how decision entirely to inference.

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