add_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 one non-obvious trait: memoryRef is a reference only and 'DPC never copies memory prose,' clarifying that no content is duplicated onto the card. However, it says nothing about duplicate handling, ordering, permissions, or what happens when project/title collide, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The final clause is slightly terse and uses the undefined acronym 'DPC,' which costs a bit of clarity but not length.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never indicates what is returned (e.g., the new card id) or how the default column behaves, relying entirely on the schema for the rest. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, with every parameter including note, column defaults, and linkedPR already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only elaborates on memoryRef's non-copy semantics, adding slight value beyond the schema's own 'opaque memory id or tag' wording.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Add a Kanban card'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like move_card, update_card, and add_project. It stops short of naming those siblings or explicitly delimiting scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus move_card, update_card, or add_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is the creation path from the verb alone.

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