create_deck_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the tool mutates state (creates a card), but it doesn't add context about required permissions, side effects, or what the response contains. The pointer to get_deck_board is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral detail.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and includes only the most important additional guidance, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 relatively simple create tool with a fully documented schema, the description provides the essential prerequisite (getting stack IDs) and sufficient context. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small hint about stackId (that stack IDs come from get_deck_board), which is useful, but it doesn't enhance understanding of the other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Create a new card') and the specific resource ('Nextcloud Deck board stack (column)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_deck_card and move_deck_card. It also mentions a necessary prerequisite tool (get_deck_board), making the purpose 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 explicitly advises using get_deck_board to find stack IDs, providing a clear workflow for how to obtain required parameters. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, but for a create operation, the usage context is clear and well-supported.

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