Assign Parent Card

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

With no annotations, this description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core effect of creating a parent-child relationship, but it omits whether an existing parent is overwritten and does not mention any permission or side-effect constraints.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and its result without filler. This is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool with an output schema.

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?

The simple schema and presence of an output schema reduce the need for return-value explanation. Still, the description lacks context about overriding an existing parent, self-parenting/cycle prevention, or any board/project constraints, which would be useful for a mutating operation with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It implies that parentCardId is the new parent and id is the card being modified, but it never explicitly labels them or specifies ID formats, leaving some inference needed.

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 states a precise action ('Set the parent card') and the resulting relationship ('parent-child (subtask) relationship'), which clearly distinguishes this from generic card mutations like update_card or move_card. The tool name is not just restated; the effect on the card hierarchy is explicit.

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 intended use is inferable: call this when you need to establish a subtask/parent-child relationship between two cards. However, it does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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