create_card

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral traits: the constraint on placements and the idempotency mechanism. This provides useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail the exact response behavior.

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 wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains critical constraints and idempotency. Excellent conciseness.

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 has an output schema and 2 parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the most important nuance (placements required) and a key feature (idempotency). However, it could briefly note that the card parameter must include title (as per schema required) to be fully self-contained.

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 no descriptions for the top-level properties (0% coverage). The description adds important semantics: it explains the placements requirement and the purpose of idempotency_key (for retries without duplication). This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 'Create a card' - a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_card, delete_card, update_card by being the creation tool. It also adds key requirements about placements and idempotency.

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 clear guidance: placements must have >=1 entry, and idempotency_key should be used for retries. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool (to create a card).

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