add_card_to_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a useful behavior: 'Auto-packs if no placement given.' However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on invalid tab/placement. This adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and a key behavior. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It lacks return value or error handling info, but these are not critical for a simple add operation.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, only mentioning optional 'tab and position' and the 'auto-packs' behavior, which relates to the placement parameter's defaults. This is a slight enhancement, but not enough to raise the score.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('a saved card on a dashboard'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'saved card' and dashboard placement, differentiating it from create_card, copy_card, and move_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 provides clear context: it is for adding an existing saved card to a dashboard, with optional tab and position. It implies a prerequisite ('saved card') and the 'optionally' phrasing signals when placement is not required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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