apply_create_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Execute card creation', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Execute card creation') and includes essential context ('after user confirms'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a card creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader workflow with siblings like 'create_card_preview'. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for reliable invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('token' and 'confirmation') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'token' and 'create_card_preview' or the purpose of the confirmation step. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Execute card creation') and the condition ('after user confirms'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_card_preview' or 'create_deck', leaving some ambiguity about its unique role in the workflow.

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 implies usage context ('after user confirms'), suggesting this is a follow-up step, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_card_preview' or 'create_deck'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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