Create card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete REST endpoint and the ISO 8601 constraint on duedate, but says nothing about required permissions, validation failures, or what is returned after creation.

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 the one non-obvious formatting rule. The raw POST path is a line of low-cost but modest-value context; nothing is bloated.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is thin: it omits the return shape, error conditions, and permission requirements. The endpoint line is helpful context but not enough to fully compensate.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains duedate (ISO 8601) and the fact that board_id/stack_id are path parameters. Meaning for order, description, and title defaults/behavior is left entirely to parameter names.

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 one card in a stack') and locates it precisely in the Deck hierarchy (board -> stack -> card), which is enough to separate it from siblings like nextcloud_create_stack or nextcloud_create_board. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing distinguishes this from nextcloud_create_task, nextcloud_create_stack, or nextcloud_update_card, and no prerequisites (a pre-existing board and stack) are stated. The only implied guidance is that the target stack must already exist, inferred from the required board_id/stack_id.

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