Add Card to List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Add a new card' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence that avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point. It does not waste words and is easy to parse.

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 a simple add operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't address return values, error conditions, or the optional nature of boardId (which defaults to active board). It could do more but remains adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it only mentions list and board as context but doesn't explain any parameter behaviors or constraints.

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 uses the verb 'Add' with the resource 'card' and specifies the destination ('to a specified list on a specific board'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_card and update_card_details by explicitly stating 'new 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 when to use (when creating a new card in a list) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so usage is inferred from the name and description.

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