planka_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. It names the mutation and target list but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, failure modes, constraints on fields, or what the operation returns.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and target, followed directly by the required payload shape. No unnecessary words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse input schema, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently in all cases. It does not explain field formats, required vs optional semantics beyond dueDate, or what a successful call returns.

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 schema provides no property-level descriptions and the fields object is empty, so the description must compensate. It usefully defines the expected fields shape: type: 'story', name, position, and optional dueDate. It could add types/formats for position and dueDate, but it adds crucial meaning to an otherwise opaque schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a card in a list.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like planka_update_card, planka_delete_card, and planka_list_cards.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use it when a new card should be created. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or mention conditions such as 'use planka_update_card to modify an existing card.'

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