Add Card to List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to. It does not say this is a mutating write, where the card lands in the list (top/bottom/position), what permissions are required, or what happens on a duplicate name. Only the operation name implies mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though almost too terse for an 8-parameter mutation tool — the brevity is what leaves the other dimensions thin.

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 an 8-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits side effects, positioning behavior, validation failure modes beyond the boardId rule, and what the agent gets back, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone.

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%, and the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the boardId refusal rule and dueReminder semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 clear verb+resource: add a new card to a list. It does not name or distinguish itself from the closest siblings (add_cards_to_list for bulk add, copy_card, move_card), and the phrase 'on a specific board' mildly conflicts with the optional boardId, but the core operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. Given siblings like add_cards_to_list (plural/bulk) and copy_card, an agent gets no signal about which to pick or in what context, which is exactly the gap this description should fill.

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