Add a checklist to a card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload { id, boardId } — valuable since there is no output schema. It stays silent on permission requirements, whether duplicate checklist names are allowed, and whether the card must already exist, which are the meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the continuation hint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the return shape, and the natural follow-up call. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is the one element an agent would still have to guess at.

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%, so the description needed to compensate and does not: neither cardId nor name is explained (format, whether name must be unique, whether cardId is a board-scoped id). The only implicit hint is that the card is identified by an id.

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 ('Create a new checklist on a card') with the scope (a card) made explicit. It also names the sibling kanbini_add_checklist_item, so an agent can immediately tell creation of the checklist container apart from adding items to it.

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 second sentence implies the workflow (create, then use the returned id with kanbini_add_checklist_item), which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never states prerequisites or when to choose this over other paths, and no exclusions are given.

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