add_board_card_label

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

The description claims 'repeated calls are idempotent', while annotations set idempotentHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. Without annotations, it would be clearer, but the inconsistency reduces trust.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. Efficient and clear.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, so the description is adequate. However, it does not mention authorization or any side effects beyond mutation, which could be implied.

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. The description adds minor context about label creation but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for parameters.

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 tool action: 'Attach a board label to a board card', with additional behavior for new labels and idempotency. It distinguishes from siblings like add_issue_label by specifying 'board 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 implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. It mentions idempotency, which is helpful, but no exclusions or comparisons to related tools.

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