planka_create_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creation and optional task addition but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether tasks replace or append), required permissions, return behavior, or failure scenarios. Minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no redundant words, directly stating the primary action and key optional feature. It is well-front-loaded and requires no parsing effort.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how tasks relate to the card, the format of dueDate (ISO), or the outcome of providing labelIds. A user unfamiliar with Planka would lack necessary 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., listId: 'The list to create the card in'). The description adds only that tasks are checklist items, which is already inferable from the schema. It does not enrich meaning beyond what is structured.

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 action ('Create a new card on a board') and the optional capability ('add tasks (checklist items)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like planka_create_tasks which separately create tasks, and planka_update_card which modifies existing cards.

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 when creating a card but does not explicitly discuss when to use or avoid this tool relative to alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., planka_create_tasks) but no guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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