roiq_add_card

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds the default status behavior, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as whether the tool creates a new card regardless of duplicates, or any side effects like auto-assignment. The description partially compensates for missing annotations but is not comprehensive.

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 very concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by listing key parameters or usage notes. No unnecessary information.

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 5 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the effect of 'props', or the format of 'assignee'. A more complete description would include parameter details and result information.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only adds meaning for 'status' (default) but leaves 'name', 'props', 'assignee', and 'pipelineId' unexplained. The nested 'props' object is particularly vague, requiring inference. The description partially compensates but insufficiently.

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 action ('Añade una tarjeta/fila') and the target resource ('un tablero o tabla'), with a specific default behavior noted ('status por defecto = primera columna'). This distinguishes it from siblings like roiq_add_column and roiq_update_card.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., roiq_update_card for existing cards, roiq_move_card for repositioning). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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