planka_add_card_labels

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a POST per labelId, which is a useful execution detail. However, it does not describe whether labels are added to existing labels or replace them, nor failure or idempotency behavior.

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 concise, with the core action front-loaded and a brief behavioral note in parentheses. The final fragment 'cardId + labelIds: [string]' is redundant with the schema but does not significantly bloat the text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits whether the operation is additive or replaces existing labels, which is critical for a tool named 'add_card_labels'. It also does not mention prerequisites for labelIds or what the response contains.

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%, and the description merely lists 'cardId + labelIds: [string]', which repeats the schema types without explaining the semantics of each parameter. The names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the property names imply.

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 states a specific action ('Attach labels to a card') on a clear resource, which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling planka_remove_card_labels. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb 'attach' is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria, but the action of attaching labels is inherently different from the sibling removal tool, so usage is implied. It also notes the operation performs one POST per labelId, which hints at the expected execution but not when to choose this over alternatives.

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