write_create_card

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: project inheritance chains, pre-posting failure if no project resolves, removal of Targetprocess default assignments followed by exact assignment, per-role effort writing, and before/after reporting of parent state and role efforts. It also explains how markdown, HTML, and plain text descriptions are handled, which annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with purpose and scope, and every clause carries useful information; there is no filler. However, the first sentence is a dense run-on, and the behavior could be easier to parse with light structuring, so it is excellent but not perfectly concise.

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 16 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the critical creation semantics and behavioral edge cases. It does not specify the response shape beyond reporting parent state and role efforts, and it omits prerequisites, but the description is complete enough for correct invocation of the main card-creation flow.

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 only 44% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the meaningful semantics of parent/project inheritance, assignee behavior, role efforts, tags, and custom fields. It also adds behavior around the format parameter ('HTML is sent as-is, plain text lines become paragraphs'). It does not fully document every parameter, but it covers the highest-risk semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create any card type' followed by an enumeration of concrete types (UserStory, Task, Bug, Feature, Epic, TestPlan, Request). It also lists the settable attributes and the team-rule behavior, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like write_update_card or read_card.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to create any card type with the described team-rule enforcement. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as write_create, write_bulk, or write_update_card, nor does it state when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest routing guidance.

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