Create cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that properties are matched by name case-insensitively, a key behavioral trait. However, it does not cover other important aspects like idempotency, error handling, or input validation constraints beyond what the schema implies. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a key behavioral nuance. Every word contributes value, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description omits return value expectations (e.g., does it return created cards or a status?) and error conditions. The tool's complexity is low, but for a creation operation, knowing the response format would improve completeness. The description adequately covers the input semantics but leaves output behavior unspecified.

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 0% description coverage at the top level (boardId and cards lack descriptions), but the tool description explains the purpose of boardId and cards ('one or more cards on a board') and adds critical detail about property matching. This compensates for the schema gaps, providing meaning beyond the bare types.

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 creates cards on a board, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('cards on a board'). It also adds a distinguishing detail about property matching being case-insensitive, which differentiates it from sibling tools like update_card. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. However, the description provides implicit usage guidance by noting that property keys are matched by name (case-insensitive) as shown by get_board. This helps the agent understand how to correctly specify properties, but does not guide selection among siblings.

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