create_card

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., creation is a write operation), rate limits, or what happens upon successful creation (e.g., returns card object). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to adequately explain behavior beyond the action.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and adds a brief usage note. Every word contributes to clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needing a list ID from get_lists), error conditions, return values, or what happens after creation. A more complete description would improve agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the action. Parameter details like idList requiring prior retrieval are not mentioned in the description, but the schema itself is clear.

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 creates a new card in a Trello list, which is the core purpose. It adds context by mentioning adding tasks, ideas, or items to workflow. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the name itself is distinct.

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 says 'Use this to add tasks, ideas, or items to your workflow,' which implies a general use case but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like trello_create_card_attachment or move_card. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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