Создать карточку

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It confirms this is a creation operation but discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, whether the card is immediately visible in the column, or what the response contains (e.g. the new card's ID, which callers need to chain further actions).

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely echoes the schema's required array, which is mild redundancy but otherwise efficient.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return-value expectations, error/permission behavior, and how the many optional fields affect the created card. An agent can call it but is poorly prepared for the result.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the three required fields, adding no meaning beyond the schema (e.g. how lane_id interacts with column_id, or asap semantics), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Создаёт новую карточку'), which implicitly contrasts with siblings like kaiten_update_card or kaiten_delete_card. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope the operation (e.g. where the card lands), so it stops short of a 5.

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 only enumerates required fields; it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kaiten_update_card or kaiten_move_card, nor any prerequisites (e.g. needing valid board/column IDs from listing tools). No exclusions or context are given.

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