Add Cards to List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: pre-flight validation (list exists, labels on board, valid dates, 2400-char cap) is all-or-nothing so bad input creates nothing, transient faults are retried, other failures halt the batch, and the reply reports per-card created/not-created status. It also prescribes asking the user before retrying, which is genuinely actionable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and bound, then validation and retry semantics. Every sentence carries new information; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description supplies the essential return semantics (which cards were created vs not) plus retry/failure handling. For a batch mutation tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the max-50 bound, in-order creation, and the validation rules (label must be on the board, date validity, 2400-character description cap) that constrain what values are legal for cards fields.

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, resource, batch size, and ordering semantic ('Add up to 50 cards to a list, in order'). The batch cardinality implicitly separates it from the singular sibling add_card_to_list, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear guidance on the failure path (transient faults retried, other failures stop the batch, ask the user before retrying), but never states when to prefer this tool over the sibling add_card_to_list or what prerequisites apply beyond the list existing. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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