cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Manage' without indicating that create/update/delete actions are destructive, whether special permissions are required, or what side effects occur. The schema lists actions but that is structured data, not descriptive context.

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 only two sentences with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the purpose and provides a clear definition of the domain. Though it is sparse, it is appropriately concise for what it contains, earning a 4.

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 complexity—four parameters, nested objects, five distinct actions, and no output schema—the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return values, action-specific behavior, or how to choose between actions. The schema covers parameters but not the broader usage context, leaving the description incomplete.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including the action enum and nested data object. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but also does not need to compensate since the schema is thorough. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Manage Planka cards' which identifies the resource and a general action verb. Adding 'Cards are individual work items on a board' provides domain context. However, 'Manage' is broad and does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling tools like tasks or lists, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lists, tasks, or comments. No context around prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions is provided. The description only defines what cards are, not when to invoke this tool.

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