framedeck-mcp

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

The description adds that checklist items are included in the duplication, supplementing the annotations. However, it does not address other card attributes (labels, comments, assignees), the implications of `openWorldHint: true`, or whether the original card is modified. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the primary action and object, and the qualifying phrase ('including its checklist items') adds necessary behavioral detail without verbosity. Zero wasted 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?

While the description covers core duplication behavior and specifically mentions checklist items, it leaves significant ambiguity regarding other card properties (labels, comments, attachments). Given the mutation nature and lack of output schema, additional scope clarification would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters including partial match support for IDs and default naming conventions. The description implies the semantic relationship (id = source, new_title = destination) but adds no syntax details beyond the 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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('card'), and adds scope detail ('including its checklist items') that hints at behavioral distinctiveness from `create_card`. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or clarify if labels, comments, or attachments are also duplicated.

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 provides no guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like `create_card` or `move_card`, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing card ID to duplicate.

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