add_placement

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the error condition ('errors if already on it'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or what the mutation does beyond adding (e.g., no mention of return value or side effects). The provided information is adequate but 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 a single, well-constructed sentence that conveys the purpose and a key constraint. It is concise with no wasted words, and the most important information (action and constraint) is front-loaded.

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 complexity (2 parameters, one nested object), and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., card must exist, board must exist) or other potential errors beyond the 'already on it' case. It covers the core action but leaves gaps in context.

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 has 2 parameters (card_id and placement) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not explain what these parameters are or how to use them. The nested 'Placement' object in the schema does have a description, but that is part of the schema, not the tool description. Since the description compensates poorly for low schema coverage, it gets a low score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Put') and clearly identifies the resource and action: adding a card to an additional board. It explicitly states the constraint 'one placement per board; errors if already on it,' which distinguishes it from siblings like 'move_card' and 'remove_placement.'

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 clearly indicates when to use: when you want to add a card to a board where it is not already placed. It warns against use if already on the board ('errors if already on it'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'move_card' for moving between boards, which would strengthen guidance.

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