add_card

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'live' (a mutation), mentions that it returns a backup_id (suggesting reversibility), and describes dry_run behavior. This is rich, useful context beyond mere parameter definitions.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. Although it is relatively long, every sentence earns its place given the six-parameter complexity. The format is scannable and informative without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers all six parameters, explains return values ('Save result with a backup_id, or a dry-run preview'), and addresses edge cases like sections views and default dashboards. It is complete for a tool of this complexity, especially with an output schema present.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter in detail, including the card config example, view matching by index/path/title, position semantics, and section requirements. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Add a card to a dashboard view (live)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_card, remove_card, and move_card by focusing on the creation aspect.

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 useful usage context, such as 'section is REQUIRED for sections views' and references list_view_sections for discovering sections. Also mentions dry_run for preview. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_card or remove_card, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool.

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