Create a card

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses the return value ({ id, boardId }), the placement at the end of a list, and the important caveat that wipLimit is advisory and not enforced server-side. It doesn't mention permissions or failure modes, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then guidance and caveats. Dense but every sentence adds value; only the wipLimit sentence is long, and it covers a non-obvious behavior worth the space.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape, placement semantics, sibling routing, optional parameter behavior, and a non-enforced constraint. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that priority is optional, gives the omission semantics ('omit for unprioritised'), and ties listId to the board lookup. It adds meaningful intent beyond the bare schema, though title constraints remain implicit.

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 and resource plus placement semantics: 'Create a new card at the end of a list.' It also names the return shape and distinguishes itself from kanbini_update_card, which handles the description and other fields.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call kanbini_get_board first to obtain a listId, and use kanbini_update_card for subsequent field changes. It also states the wipLimit precondition and what to do before adding when a limit is set.

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